Search results

The authors compare perspectives on external evaluation of health service provision between Norway and the USA. External inspection and accreditation are examples of internationally wide-spread external evaluation methods used to assess the quality of care given to patients. Different countries have different national policy strategies and arrangements set up to do these evaluations. Although there is growing attention to the impact and effects on quality and safety from external evaluation, there is still a gap in knowledge to how structures and processes influence these outcomes. Accordingly, the purpose of this article is to describe the structures and processes in external evaluation designed to promote quality improvement in Norway and the USA with attention to comparison of enablers and barriers in external evaluation systems.

Data collection consisted of documentary evidence retrieved from governmental policies, and reviews of the Joint Commission (the US), international guidelines, recommendations and reports from the International Society for Quality in Health Care, and the World Health Organization, and policies and regulations related to Norwegian governmental bodies such as the Ministry of Health and Care Services, the Norwegian Directorate of Health, and the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision . Data were analyzed inspired by a deductive, direct content analytical framework.

The authors found that both accreditation and inspection are strategies put in place to ensure that healthcare providers have adequate quality systems as well as contributing to the wider risk and safety enhancing management and implementation processes in the organizations subjected to evaluation. The US and the Norwegian external regulatory landscapes are complex and include several policymaking and governing institutions. The Norwegian regulatory framework for inspection has replaced an individual blame logic with a model which “blames” the system for inadequate quality and patient harm. This contrasts with the US accreditation system, which focuses on accreditation visits. Although findings indicate an ongoing turning point in accreditation, findings also demonstrate that involving patients and next of kin directly in adverse event inspections is a bigger part of a change in external inspection culture and methods than in processes of accreditation.

The message of this paper is important for policymakers, and bodies of inspection and accreditation because knowledge retrieved from the comparative document study may contribute to better understanding of the implications from the different system designs and in turn contribute to improving external evaluations.

Although there is a growing attention to the impact and effects on quality and safety from external evaluation, the implications of different regulatory strategies and arrangements for evaluation on quality and safety remain unclear.

This study aims to explore nursing home and home care managers’ strategies in handling the COVID-19 pandemic.

This study has a qualitative design with semistructured individual interviews conducted digitally by videophone (Zoom). Eight managers from nursing homes and five managers from home care services located in a large urban municipality in eastern Norway participated. Systematic text condensation methodology was used for the analysis.

The managers used several strategies to handle challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including being proactive and thinking ahead in terms of possible scenarios that might occur, continuously training of staff in new procedures and routines and systematic information sharing at all levels, as well as providing different ways of disseminating information for staff, service users and next-of-kins. To handle staffing challenges, managers used strategies such as hiring short-term staff that were temporary laid off from other industries and bringing in students.

The COVID-19 pandemic heavily affected health-care systems worldwide, which has led to many health-care studies. The situation in nursing homes and home care services, which were strongly impacted by the pandemic and in charge of a vulnerable group of people, has not yet received enough attention in research. This study, therefore, seeks to contribute to this research gap by investigating how managers in nursing homes and home care services used different strategies to handle the COVID-19 pandemic.

The purpose of this conceptual paper is to develop a model of the hypothesized relationships between investments and outcomes of resilient health care (RHC).

Based on the extant literature, the aforementioned model is described along with proxy measures of its composing variables and a matrix for assessing the cost-effectiveness of RHC instantiations. Additional possible relationships are set out in two propositions for theory testing.

The model conveys that RHC gives rise to both desired and undesired outcomes. Investments moderate the relationships between RHC and its outcomes. Both investments and outcomes can be broadly categorized as either human or technical. Moreover, the propositions refer to what type and how much investment is necessary to perform in a resilient manner, what are the intended or desired outcomes of RHC, for how long and who is affected by these outcomes.

The cost-effectiveness perspective of RHC is new and the proposed model opens opportunities for empirical and theoretical research.

The purpose of this rapid review was to present current evidence on relations between resilience and self-efficacy among healthcare practitioners in the context of COVID-19 pandemic.

Literature searches were conducted in February/2022 in the online database MEDLINE EBSCO and not date/time limited. Eligibility criteria were as follows: population – healthcare practitioners, interest – relations between resilience and self-efficacy and context – COVID-19.

Six eligible studies from Italy, China, United Kingdom, India, Pakistan and Spain, published between 2020 and 2021 were included in the review. All studies used quantitative methods. The relations between resilience and self-efficacy were identified in contexts of resilience programs, measuring mental health of frontline nurses, measuring nurses' and nursing students' perception of psychological preparedness for pandemic management, perception of COVID-19 severity and mediating roles of self-efficacy and resilience between stress and both physical and mental quality of life. Findings indicated limited research on this topic and a need for more research.

Broader understanding of the relations between resilience and self-efficacy may help healthcare organizations' leaders/managers aiming to support resilience of their employers under challenging circumstances such as future pandemic.

The latest COVID-19 pandemic presented the opportunity to research relations between resilience and self-efficacy and enrich existed research in a new and extraordinary context.