Search

Background: Effective management of crises is a major challenge for healthcare organisations and their managers. Research suggests that to respond to evolving and unpredictable crises, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, an organisation needs the capability to continually adapt to the changing situation using relevant knowledge. However, there are few empirical studies using an organisational resilience perspective to understand how a health system responds to this type of crisis. This study aimed to describe managers' perspectives on what influenced the response to the Covid-19 pandemic in the Region Stockholm healthcare system for older people., Methods: Data collection was conducted through in-depth semi-structured interviews with assistant managers (n = 3) and managers of inpatient geriatric services outside of acute care hospitals (n = 8), managers of three acute care hospitals (n = 3); and the crisis management team for geriatric services (n = 3). Data was analysed using qualitative content analysis., Results: Crisis management of geriatric care in the Stockholm healthcare system during the Covid-19 pandemic's first 15 months was influenced by a combination of service specific aspects, 'Internal flexible responses', collaborative aspects, 'Coordination within the system', and governance aspects 'Adaptive steering'., Conclusions: This study contributes to empirical knowledge about organisational resilience. Managers' responses are facilitated when the governance allow them more flexibility in their internal responses and enable their cross-organisational collaboration. A coordinating function across healthcare services is an important enabler in a crisis when the function has well-established, trustful prior collaborations with the services., (The International Journal of Health Planning and Management© 2024 The Author(s). The International Journal of Health Planning and Management published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: Decentralisation of decision-making from central to lower level organisation has been proposed as a way to increase innovation and make services more responsive to local needs. The purpose of this study was to discover research that can contribute to understanding decentralisation as one strategy for resolving challenges in healthcare service delivery organisations. This scoping review provides examples and research-informed guidance for decentralisation research, planning and implementation., Findings: There is limited empirical research into management decentralisation within primary and community care, but some useful frameworks for assessing and planning decentralisation. Rapid changes are being made to workforce redesign, substitution and patient co-production. Research into such 'micro-decentralisation' is not considered in the decentralisation literature. Neither is how the context of culture, systems and regulations affects implementation of this type of decentralisation. Our recent experience suggests that management decentralisation can enable fast and effective local changes to respond to the evolving Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS COV-2) pandemic., Conclusions: Decentralisation can create conditions that support innovation and improvement locally to develop primary and community care. Managers and policy makers can use an appropriate decentralisation strategy to address challenges in workforce retention and recruitment, rising care demands and expectations of patients. There are opportunities for researchers to provide actionable knowledge about changes in organisations and management which could address current challenges in healthcare., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This paper summarises the findings from an empirical longitudinal study of a health and social care consortium for people with mental health problems in one area in Stockholm. The aim was to describe the formation and structure of coordination within the consortium, and to assess the intermediate impact on care processes and client outcomes. A multiple-method case study design, theoretically informed by the Pettigrew and Whipp model of strategic change (1993) was applied. Data was gathered from interviews with informants from different organisations at different times in the development of the consortium, and from administrative documents, plans and service statistics showing some of the intermediate changes and client outcomes. The findings revealed activities and factors both helping and hindering the formation of coordination arrangements. One of the most significant hindering factors was the central county purchasing organisation focusing more on volume and costs, with payments for specific units and services, and with less emphasis on quality of the services. Few studies have described implementation of changes to improve coordination with reference to context over a long period of time, as well as assessing different results. This study contributes to knowledge about improved methods for this type of research, as well as knowledge about developing coordination between public health and welfare services. One lesson for the current policy is that, where full structural integration is not possible, then client-level coordination roles in each sector are useful to connect sector services for shared clients., (Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

By 2005 all healthcare organizations in Europe will be required to take part in a quality evaluation scheme and to collect data about the quality of their service. Hospitals and doctors will need to prove they are safe--quality is no longer assumed. These were the predictions of a recent workshop of Nordic quality experts. The pressures to assess quality are increasing, and there are many assessment, certification, accreditation and measurement schemes in use. Which is best? What evidence is there that any have been effective? How should a hospital or region introduce such a scheme? There are many proponents for different schemes, and an increasing amount of experience to help answer these questions, but little research. This paper provides an overview for non-specialists of the different quality evaluation and indicator schemes for inspection and improvement. It draws on the experiences of quality specialists and leaders in each Nordic country who have applied the schemes in public hospitals and healthcare services. How a scheme is introduced and used may be more important than which particular scheme is chosen. This is one conclusion of the Nordic workshop. Other conclusions are that there is a need for clinicians to be involved, a need to balance simplicity and low cost with scientific validity and credibility with clinicians, and a need for research into different schemes to discover their costs and benefits in healthcare.