Search

Our study examines the empirical case of the political leadership response to Covid-19 in England. It shows that, rather than the ideal configuration of leadership suggested by theory, within which individualistic and collective leadership blend, a less balanced configuration emerged that can be characterised as incoherent. In England, an individual political leader behaved in an authoritarian way, which ignored evidence about how to address Covid-19. So, rather than an individual orchestrating a collective leadership effort to address complex issues, leadership was rendered fragmented and chaotic. We suggest that the English context, characterised by populist tendencies and neoliberal economic policy, shaped the poor leadership response to Covid-19.

Background: In 2015, the Government of Quebec undertook a vast reorganization of its health and social services network. This reform mainly aimed to promote and simplify access to services for the population, contributing to the improvement of the quality and safety of care, and increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the network. Since 2016, several health care organizations (HCOs) have pushed reform even further by developing management through care and service pathways (MCSP). This study aims to identify, in a processual manner, the different factors involved in implementing MCSP in different HCOs, in the turbulent context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: The methodology of this research project is based on developmental evaluation. The objective of developmental evaluation is to guide organizations and actors in the adaptation and development of innovations in complex and turbulent environments. Data will be collected over a three-year period using five strategies: i) organizational questionnaires; ii) analysis of clinical-administrative databases; iii) documentary analysis (grey and scientific literatures); iv) participant observations and v) semi-structured interviews with key actors involved in the implementation of MCSP. Discussion: In addition to the operationalization of pathways, the implementation of MCSP i) involves transforming the governance of the health care organization both at the strategic and operational levels and ii) is a demanding process that requires changes in practices, modifications in the allocation and configuration of resources and the development of new collaborations between the different actors in the organization, the partners and the users involved in this transformation. Several studies claim that governance innovations can create conditions that are favourable to the emergence of innovations in terms of available services and responding to the needs of populations. This research will develop knowledge of the factors involved in implementing MCSP in complex and turbulent contexts and propose scale-up across the province.

KRAS mutations occur in approximately 30% of lung adenocarcinomas, mainly in codon 12 (83% of cases), p.G12C being the prevalent one (40%), followed by p.G12V and p.G12D (22 and 16%, respectively). Treatment options for advanced KRAS mutant non-small-cell lung cancer ( KRAS-MT NSCLC) are limited to chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs). However, clinical trials exploring specific targeted agents are expected to change the treatment landscape of this disease. Here, we describe the design and scientific rationale of the randomized, phase II, open label, RAMP-202 study, which will evaluate the efficacy and safety of VS-6766 versus VS-6766 in combination with defactinib in advanced KRAS-MT NSCLC patients after failure of prior platinum-based chemotherapy and CPI.

Background: Employee-driven innovation (EDI) occurs when frontline actors in health organizations use their firsthand experience to spur new ideas to transform care. Despite its increasing prevalence in health organizations, the organizational conditions under which EDI is operationalized have received little scholarly attention. Methods: This scoping review identifies gaps and assembles existing knowledge on four questions: What is EDI in health organizations and which frontline actors are involved? What are the characteristics of the EDI process? What contextual factors enable or impede EDI? And what benefits does EDI bring to health organizations? We searched seven databases with keywords related to EDI in health organizations. After screening 1580 studies by title and abstract, we undertook full-text review of 453 articles, retaining 60 for analysis. We performed a descriptive and an inductive thematic analysis guided by the four questions. Results: Findings reveal an heterogeneous literature. Most articles are descriptive (n=41). Few studies are conceptual and empirical (n=15) and four are conference papers. EDI was often described as a participatory, learning innovation process involving frontline clinical and non-clinical staff and managers. Majority EDI were top-down, often driven by the organization’s focus on participatory improvement and innovation and research-based initiatives. Five categories of methods is used in top-down EDI, two thirds of which includes a learning, a team and/or a digital component. Hybrid EDI often involves a team-based component. Bottom-up EDI emerged spontaneously from the work of frontline actors. Enablers, barriers and benefits of EDI are seen at macro, organizational, team and individual levels; some benefits spread to other health organizations and health systems. Conclusion: This scoping review provides a comprehensive understanding of the organizational conditions under which EDI is operationalized. It offers insights for researchers, health organizations and policy makers about how and why frontline actors’ involvement is crucial for the transformation of care.

The policy capacity framework offers relevant analytical ideas that can be mobilized for health system strengthening. However, the employment of this framework in the health field constitutes a relevant interdisciplinary gap in knowledge. This themed issue explores the relationships between the policy capacity framework and health system strengthening, in a multidimensional and interdisciplinary way, in high-income and low–middle-income countries. This introduction unpacks the dynamic interrelationships between the policy capacity framework and health system strengthening, bringing together common and distinct elements from both fields and summarizing possible relationships between them. The analysis shows that both fields together can increase our knowledge on health policies and system’s critical themes and reforms. This challenge could be followed by exploring the convergences between them, as far as concepts/themes (types of capacities and other themes) and levels of analysis are concerned. Although in varied ways, papers in this issue (based on European countries, China, Canada, New Zealand, India, Australia, and Brazil) advance the use of the policy capacity framework for health policy or system strengthening. They give two main interdisciplinary contributions. Critical capacities can be incorporated into the policy capacity framework for the analysis of system strengthening—capacity to adapt, contexts of mixed and complex systems, dynamic view of policy capacity, and policy capacity as a relational power. Policy capacity is contextually interpreted (relative to the problem frame) and dynamic and adaptive (processual and relational), in relation to the properties of a health system, particularly with regard to the existing and developing mixed and complex systems.

In its Strategic Plan 2021-2026, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research - Institute of Health Services and Policy Research (IHSPR) convincingly expresses its desire to expand capacity for applied health services and policy research (HSPR) and better mobilize research results for health system transformation geared toward the Quadruple Aim and health equity for all (CIHR IHSPR 2021). These strategic priorities echo views widely shared within the HSPR community, and we commend IHSPR for its leadership and vision. Recognizing the systemic challenges ahead of us, this commentary considers the HSPR community's capacity to achieve the promise of learning health systems, given the obstacles likely to hinder their rapid scale-up over the next five years. Next, we consider the spread of virtual care during the pandemic to illustrate the embedded and negotiated nature of innovation in health systems and the need for vigilance as to the social distribution of their benefits and costs. Finally, a critical review of the strategic plan provides insights into how research is governed in the HSPR field. Based on this analysis, it appears essential to reconsider health system transformation as social system transformation and strengthen interdisciplinary and comparative research. Looking forward, developing a science of science to better understand the conditions associated with high-impact research should be a cross-cutting priority for Canada's HSPR community.

Recent work on health system strengthening suggests that a combination of leadership and policy capacity is essential to achieve transformation and improvement. Policy capacity and leadership are mutually constitutive but difficult to assemble in a coherent and consistent way. Our paper relies on the nested model of policy capacity to empirically explore how health reformers in seven Canadian provinces address the question of policy capacity. More specifically, we look at emerging representations of policy capacity within the context of health reforms between 1990 and 2020. Based on the exploration of the scientific and grey literature (legislation, annual reports of Ministries, agencies and organizations, meeting minutes, press, etc.) and interviews with key informants (n = 54), we identify how policy capacity is considered and framed within health reforms A series of core dilemmas emerge from attempts by each province to develop policy capacity for and through health reforms.

The objective of this study was to describe and assess the quality of the direct-to-consumer medical teleconsultation landscape in three Canadian provinces. An environmental scan of primary care teleconsultation platforms was conducted in January 2022 to identify medical teleconsultation platforms in Quebec (Qc), Ontario, and British Columbia (BC). The quality of each teleconsultation platform was assessed using a modified version of the HONcode principles. Nineteen different direct-to-consumer medical teleconsultation platforms were identified across the three provinces. The quality of these teleconsultation platforms was very heterogeneous. The landscape of virtual primary care is changing rapidly in the Canadian ecosystem, and the transparency of current teleconsultation platforms could be improved.

Considering the extensive use of smartphones in current societies, web-based applications could be considered as a new option for patient follow-up in surgery. By means of such tool, automated and periodic questionnaires could improve the rigor, accuracy and the comprehensiveness of postoperative monitoring, as well as early detection of complications, especially in the current context of evolving ambulatory surgery.The web-based surveys would improve the quality of immediate postoperative monitoring.For 7 months, we included all patients who underwent outpatient arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. After preoperative randomization, each patient was asked postoperatively to complete either paper-based forms or digital questionnaires via a website (Orthense.com®, Digikare Inc. Blagnac, France). Both media (i.e. paper and digital) followed the same postoperative agenda (i.e., D+3, D+14, D+28, D+45, D+90) and had the same content, including pain and discomfort assessments, functional scores (i.e. Shoulder subjective value, simple shoulder test and auto-constant scores). The main objective was to investigate the quality of postoperative follow-up after outpatient arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery, using either printed questionnaires or web-based surveys. The hypothesis was that using a web-based survey would result in greater response rates and increased patient satisfaction regarding follow-up. Primary outcomes were questionnaire response rates at D+45 and D+90, while secondary outcomes were overall response rates, patient recommendation for the monitoring medium and overall patient satisfaction regarding their follow-up using the net promoter score (NPS).Among the 59 consecutive patients who were included, there were 27 females and 26 males with a mean age of 57±10.2 years; 27 patients completed the web-based survey (Group A) and 26 patients answered paper-based questionnaires (Group B). Regarding the D+45 questionnaire, response rates were 85.2% (n=23) in group A and 42.3% (n=11) in group B (p=.005); a similar significant difference was observed regarding the D+90 questionnaire, with response rates of 70.4% and 34.6%, respectively (p=.027). The mean NPS for the survey was 10 in Group A and 8.29 in Group B (p=.016). Overall, satisfaction regarding postoperative care did not differ between the two groups.Compared to traditional paper-based forms, web-based surveys appear to increase patient adherence to short-term postoperative monitoring. If these findings were to be confirmed in long-term follow-up, such straightforward and cost-effective tool could be of great use in clinical care and research.I; Randomized controlled clinical trial.

Background: The health workforce is central to healthcare systems and population health, but marginal in comparative health policy. This study aims to highlight the crucial relevance of the health workforce and contribute comparative evidence to help improve the protection of healthcare workers and prevention of inequalities during a major public health crisis. Methods: Our integrated governance framework considers system, sector, organizational and socio-cultural dimensions of health workforce policy. The COVID-19 pandemic serves as the policy field and Brazil, Canada, Italy, and Germany as illustrative cases. We draw on secondary sources (literature, document analysis, public statistics, reports) and country expert information with a focus on the first COVID-19 waves until the summer of 2021. Results: Our comparative investigation illustrates the benefits of a multi-level governance approach beyond health system typologies. In the selected countries, we found similar problems and governance gaps concerning increased workplace stress, lack of mental health support, and gender and racial inequalities. Health policy across countries failed to adequately respond to the needs of HCWs, thus exacerbating inequalities during a major global health crisis. Conclusions: Comparative health workforce policy research may contribute new knowledge to improve health system resilience and population health during a crisis.

PurposeArtificial intelligence (AI) raises many expectations regarding its ability to profoundly transform health care delivery. There is an abundant literature on the technical performance of AI applications in many clinical fields (e.g. radiology, ophthalmology). This article aims to bring forward the importance of studying organizational readiness to integrate AI into health care delivery.Design/methodology/approachThe reflection is based on our experience in digital health technologies, diffusion of innovations and healthcare organizations and systems. It provides insights into why and how organizational readiness should be carefully considered.FindingsAs an important step to ensure successful integration of AI and avoid unnecessary investments and costly failures, better consideration should be given to: (1) Needs and added-value assessment; (2) Workplace readiness: stakeholder acceptance and engagement; (3) Technology-organization alignment assessment and (4) Business plan: financing and investments. In summary, decision-makers and technology promoters should better address the complexity of AI and understand the systemic challenges raised by its implementation in healthcare organizations and systems.Originality/valueFew studies have focused on the organizational issues raised by the integration of AI into clinical routine. The current context is marked by a perplexing gap between the willingness of decision-makers and technology promoters to capitalize on AI applications to improve health care delivery and the reality on the ground, where it is difficult to initiate the changes needed to realize their full benefits while avoiding their negative impacts.

Over the past few months, our fellow citizens have heard more about public health than ever before. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has shed light on the vital role played by public health for health protection and provided telling evidence about current public health capacity as well as the corrective measures to be taken and milestones to be achieved in the future. To this end, we identify several ways forward to re-empower public health in Québec and thus ensure that it can significantly contribute to population health. In particular, we propose that although reforms must continue to bolster health protection, substantial efforts are required to strengthen surveillance systems, prevention systems, health promotion systems, and accessible, effective, and overarching primary care systems.RéSUMé: Depuis quelques mois, jamais nos concitoyens n’ont autant entendu parler de santé publique. La pandémie de SARS-CoV-2 a mis en lumière le rôle essentiel de la santé publique pour la protection de la santé et a été un puissant révélateur de la capacité actuelle de la santé publique ainsi que des correctifs à apporter et des exigences à rencontrer dans le futur. À cette fin, nous avons identifié plusieurs pistes pour redonner du pouvoir à la santé publique au Québec et s’assurer de cette façon qu’elle puisse contribuer de manière significative à la santé de la population. Plus particulièrement, nous proposons que même si les réformes doivent continuer d’accroître son travail de protection de la santé, des efforts substantiels sont nécessaires pour renforcer ses systèmes de surveillance, de prévention, de promotion de la santé et de soins de première ligne pour qu’ils soient accessibles, efficaces et complets.

In publicly funded health systems, reform efforts have proliferated to adapt to increasingly complex demands. In Canada, prior research (Lazar et al., 2013, Paradigm Freeze: Why is it so Hard to Reform Health Care in Canada?, McGill-Queen's Press) found that reforms at the end of the 20th century failed to change the fundamentals of the Canadian system based on physician independence and assured universal coverage only for medical and hospital services. This paper focuses on reforms since the turn of the millennium to explore the transformative capacities developed in seven provinces within this system architecture. Longitudinal case studies, based on scientific and grey literature, and interviews with key informants, trace the patterns of reform in each province and reveal five objectives that, to varying degrees, preoccupied reformers: (1) address chronic disease, (2) align health system actors with provincial objectives, (3) shift from hospital to community-based care, (4) integrate physicians, and (5) develop improvement capacities. The range of strategies adopted to achieve these objectives in different provinces is compared to identify emerging pathways of reform and extract lessons for future reformers. We find significant cross-learning between provinces, but also note an emergent dimension to reforms, where multiple strategies aggregate through time to create unique patterns, presenting their own set of possibilities and limitations for the future.

Medical doctors play a crucial role in the allocation and use of resources in health care systems. They shape capacities to renew policy orientations and innovate models of care. However, little attention has been paid to their specific role in health reforms. This book explores this aspect by looking at the role of the medical profession in health reforms in two mature welfare states with publicly-funded healthcare systems (PFHS): Canada and England. Specifically, the book investigates the multifaceted and paradoxical situation where a dominant profession – medicine – faces increasing pressures to become an active player and an ally in major policy efforts and system-wide reforms driven by governments. The conceptual underpinning of this work builds on the contribution of various areas of studies, namely the sociology of professions, studies on professions and organisations and law. The analysis investigates reformative processes from the inception of both PFHS and identifies the role of the medical profession in policy formulation. The focus is predominantly on the role of organised medicine (unions, professional associations and colleges) with their political struggles to promote and advance medical values and interests in a context where governments aim to transform health care systems. Empirically, the book builds on a socio-historical and institutional narrative of health care reforms and on the role played by the medical profession in both countries. The book offers insights into the government's ability to drive change in the health care system and to engage medical doctors as partners in health reforms.

This Chapter provides a case narrative the role of medical doctors in healthcare reforms in the two most populated Canadian provinces of Quebec and Ontario. While healthcare systems across Canada share some similarities, they remain mostly independent and thus need to be studied as such. The narrative tracks the evolution of the system from its inception up until the latest period of reforms (2014-2018 for Quebec and 2010-19 for Ontario). On the basis of this narrative, the authors offer an analysis of reforms focusing on three aspects: 1) The drivers and shapers of medical politics; 2) the strategies used by the medical doctors and governments to deal with evolving context and 3) the implications for medical politics and healthcare reforms.

This chapter lays out the book’s research methodology. The authors discuss the methodological questions arising from exploring empirically the role of medical doctors in healthcare reforms and the related policy changes. The chapter also explains the methodological choices around the data set, the context-specific elements, and the role of jurisdictional or situational influence and agency in healthcare reforms. To answer these questions, the authors explore methodological developments in contextualist and process research as a plausible way to approach policy-oriented research. Additionally, the authors motivate their choice of opting for comparative longitudinal case studies to track the evolving dynamics of healthcare reforms and medical politics in Canada and England.