Health Care Management Review最新文献

Background: Substantial variation exists in how well health care is integrated, even across similarly structured organizations, yet research about what physician organizations (POs) do that enables or inhibits integrated care is limited.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore the dynamics that enable POs to integrate care.

Methodology/approach: We ranked a stratified sample of POs according to patient perceptions of integrated care, as measured in a survey. We interviewed professionals, patients, and family members in 10 higher and 3 lower ranked POs about the process of caring for patients with complex conditions. We derived integration-related themes from the interview data and quantified their prevalence. Using a quasi-statistical approach, we explored relationships among themes and their associations with patient perceptions of integrated care.

Results: From 6,104 coded references, we derived a set of themes representing integration perspectives, integration engagement mechanisms, and integration failures. POs experienced frequent integration failures. Higher ranked POs experienced these failures less often because of a combination of functional, interpersonal, and stakeholder engagement mechanisms, which appear to complement one another. Integration perspectives, including both people-oriented and systems-oriented mindsets, appear to play a role in generating these integration dynamics.

Conclusion: Delivering integrated care depends on a PO's ability to limit integration failures, keeping provider attention focused on patients. Building on the attention-based view, we present a framework suggesting that this ability is a function of both integration perspectives and integration engagement mechanisms.

Practice implications: POs interested in delivering more integrated care should employ a variety of complementary integration engagement mechanisms and facilitate these efforts by nurturing both people-oriented and system-oriented mindsets among PO decision-makers.

Background: Patient engagement (PE) is critical to improving patient experience and outcomes, as well as clinician work life and lowering health care costs, yet health care organizations (HCOs) have limited guidance about how to support PE. The engagement capacity framework considers the context of engagement and examines precursors to engagement, including patients' self-efficacy, resources, willingness, and capabilities.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore clinician and patient perspectives related to mechanisms through with the HCOs can facilitate PE through the lens of the engagement capacity framework.

Methodology/approach: We administered an online open-ended survey to clinicians and patient advisors across the United States, including questions focused on the influences of, barriers to, and skills and tools required for PE. A common theme emerged focusing on the role of HCOs in facilitating engagement. Our analysis examined all responses tagged with the "health care system" code.

Results: Over 750 clinicians and patient advisors responded to our survey. Respondents identified offering advice and support for patients to manage their care (self-efficacy), providing tools to facilitate communication (resources), working to encourage connection with patients (willingness), and training for HCO employees in cultural competency and communication skills (capabilities) as important functions of HCOs related to engagement.

Conclusion: HCOs play an important role in supporting a strong partnership between the patient and clinicians. Our study identifies important mechanisms through which HCOs can fulfill this role.

Practice implications: HCO leadership and administration can help establish the culture of care provided. Policies and initiatives that provide appropriate communication tools and promote culturally competent care can increase engagement.

Background: Existing studies that seek to understand nurses' experiences of burnout are dominated by cross-sectional, quantitative survey designs employing predetermined measures, often overlooking important job-related stressors that can be highly dependent on industry and professional contexts. Cancer nurses are a group of professionals who warrant special attention, as burnout in this profession is often attributed to high job demands and the challenge of caring for a vulnerable cohort of patients. A deeper understanding of the job demands associated with cancer nursing is required to provide insights about the work experiences of cancer nurses and identify aspects that mitigate burnout and stress.

Purpose: This study describes the antecedents of burnout among Australian cancer nurses by focusing on the demands and resources inherent in their work. We aim to build on the existing literature by identifying job resources that may serve to mitigate the antecedents of burnout.

Methodology/approach: An in-depth interview study of cancer nurses across a spectrum of age and experience in Australian metropolitan public health care services was conducted over a 2-year period that coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic. The job demands and resources model framed this study of job-related factors associated with burnout and conversely job resources that may foster work engagement.

Results: Patient aggression, workload, emotional demands, and abusive peers and managers were reported as distinct job demands, whereas job significance and supportive peers who demonstrated leadership, along with task variety, were identified as job resources.

Conclusion: Australian cancer nurses work in an environment where job demands are increasingly disproportionate to job resources, leading to significant risk of burnout.

Practice implications: Our study identifies modifiable strategies for improving work conditions for this group who play a critical role in the health care system.

Issue: Health care management is faced with a basic conundrum about organizational behavior; why do professionals who are highly dedicated to their work choose to remain silent on critical issues that they recognize as being professionally and organizationally significant? Speaking-up interventions in health care achieve disappointing outcomes because of a professional and organizational culture that is not supportive.

Critical theoretical analysis: Our understanding of the different types of employee silence is in its infancy, and more ethnographic and qualitative work is needed to reveal the complex nature of silence in health care. We use the sensemaking theory to elucidate how the difficulties to overcoming silence in health care are interwoven in health care culture.

Insight/advance: The relationship between withholding information and patient safety is complex, highlighting the need for differentiated conceptualizations of silence in health care. We present three Critical Challenge points to advance our understanding of silence and its roots by (1) challenging the predominance of psychological safety, (2) explaining how we operationalize sensemaking, and (3) transforming the role of clinical leaders as sensemakers who can recognize and reshape employee silence. These challenges also point to how employee silence can also result in a form of dysfunctional professionalism that supports maladaptive health care structures in practice.

Practice implications: Delineating the contextual factors that prompt employee silence and encourage speaking up among health care workers is crucial to addressing this issue in health care organizations. For clinical leaders, the challenge is to valorize behaviors that enhance adaptive and deep psychological safety among teams and within professions while modeling the sharing of information that leads to improvements in patient safety and quality of care.

Background: Determining the different features and potential impacts of community initiatives aimed at health-related outcomes poses challenges for both researchers and policy makers.

Purpose: This article explores the nature of heterogeneous "community engagement initiatives" (CEIs) considering both their social and organizational features in order to understand the managerial and policy implications to maximize their potential local health and social care-related impacts.

Methodology: A threefold qualitative analysis was conducted: (a) Three frameworks were developed to classify and analyze different CEIs features, building upon the current literature debate; (b) primary data were collected from Italian CEIs; and (c) a comparative cross-case analysis of a total of 79 CEIs in Italy and the United Kingdom was implemented.

Findings: The results show two types of strategic policy and management implications: (a) CEI portfolios are very broad and differentiated; (b) different social networks have diversified social constructs, internal cultures, and organizational features; and (c) there is a consequent need to contextualize relational and steering approaches in order to maximize their potential community added value.

Conclusion: CEIs are fundamental pillars of contemporary welfare systems because of both the changing demography and epidemiology and the disruptive impact of platform economy models. This challenging scenario and the related CEIs involve a complex social mechanism, which requires a new awareness and strengthened competences for public administrations' steering.

Practice implications: It is crucial for policy makers and managers to become familiar with all the different CEIs available in order to choose which solution to implement, depending on their potential impacts related to local public health and social care priorities. They also need to select the related effective steering logic.

Background: In 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic emerged. Variation in COVID-19 patient outcomes between hospitals was later reported.

Purpose: This study aims to determine whether sustainers-hospitals with sustained high performance on Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Total Performance Score (HVBP-TPS)-more effectively responded to the pandemic and therefore had better patient outcomes.

Methodology: We calculated hospital-specific risk-standardized event rates using deidentified patient-level data from the UnitedHealth Group Clinical Discovery Database. HVBP-TPS from 2016 to 2019 were obtained from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Hospital characteristics were obtained from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database (2019), and county-level predictors were obtained from the Area Health Resource File. We use a repeated-measures regression model assuming an AR(1) type correlation structure to test whether sustainers had lower mortality rates than nonsustainers during the first wave (spring 2020) and the second wave (October to December 2020) of the pandemic.

Results: Sustainers did not have significantly lower COVID-19 mortality rates during the first wave of the pandemic, but they had lower COVID-19 mortality rates during the second wave compared to nonsustainers. Larger hospitals, teaching hospitals, and hospitals with higher occupancy rates had higher mortality rates.

Conclusion: During the first wave of the pandemic, mortality rates did not differ between sustainers and nonsustainers. However, sustainers had lower mortality rates than nonsustainers in the second wave, most likely because of their knowledge management capabilities and existing structures and resources that enable them to develop new processes and routines to care for patients in times of crisis. Therefore, a consistently high level of performance over the years on HVBP-TPS is associated with high levels of performance on COVID-19 patient outcomes.

Practice implications: Investing in identifying the knowledge, processes, and resources that foster the dynamic capabilities needed to achieve superior performance in HVBP might enable hospitals to utilize these capabilities to adapt more effectively to future changes and uncertainty.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has been an unusually comprehensive crisis that has taken a toll on people in their roles both at work and at home, giving rise to a new normal.

Purpose: Relational coordination theory shows how communicating and relating for the purpose of task integration drives positive outcomes for workers, their clients, and their employers. The ecological theory of work-family spillover shows how relational dynamics from work spillover into family life, and vice versa. We build upon these two theories to understand how relationships at work impact work-life balance and worker well-being, especially in times of crisis.

Methodology: This study was based on surveys of clinicians affiliated with a large California health system during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mediation and multilevel logistic regression models were used to assess how relational coordination among colleagues impacts well-being (job satisfaction and lack of burnout) through its effects on work-life balance (schedule control and personal time).

Results: A 1-point increase in relational coordination tripled clinician odds of having schedule control ( OR = 3.33, p < .001) and nearly doubled the odds of having adequate personal time ( OR = 1.83, p < .001). A 1-point increase in relational coordination nearly quadrupled odds of being satisfied with their job ( OR = 3.92, p < .001) and decreased odds of burnout by 64% ( OR = 0.36, p < .001). The impact of relational coordination on worker well-being was mediated by greater schedule control and personal time.

Conclusion: Relational coordination among colleagues impacts worker well-being by enabling greater control over one's schedule and more personal time, thus creating a positive spillover from work to home in times of crisis.

Practice implications: In times of crisis, leaders should prioritize relational coordination among colleagues in order to support their resilience both at work and at home.

Background: Health care delivery system features can have a profound effect on how frontline physicians and other clinical personnel in primary care practices (primary care providers [PCPs]) view the quality and safety of what they deliver and, ultimately, their clinical work satisfaction.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the combinations of system features (i.e., team dynamics, provider-perceived safety culture, and patient care coordination between PCPs) that are most conducive to positively enhancing PCPs' clinical work satisfaction.

Approach: Nineteen Harvard-affiliated primary care practice sites participated in the Academic Innovations Collaborative 2012-2016, which aimed to establish team-based care and improve patient safety. An All-Staff Survey was administered to 854 PCPs in 2015. The survey measured provider experience of team dynamics, provider-perceived safety culture, patient care coordination between PCPs, and providers' clinical work satisfaction. We performed a qualitative comparative analysis to identify "recipes," that is, combinations of conditions necessary and sufficient for enhancing PCPs' clinical work satisfaction.

Results: Strong provider-perceived safety culture and effective team dynamics constitute sufficient conditions that, when present in practices, could best support PCPs to achieve greater clinical work satisfaction.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest the importance of creating and sustaining a strong safety culture and of establishing and implementing highly functioning teams in primary care practices for enhancing PCPs' clinical work satisfaction.

Practice implications: Conducting the qualitative comparative analysis provides a new perspective for informing primary care and encouraging primary care practices to pursue strategic priorities for enhancing PCPs' clinical work satisfaction and providing safe, high-quality care.

Background: In response to the complexity, challenges, and slow pace of innovation, health care organizations are adopting interdisciplinary team approaches. Systems engineering, which is oriented to creating new, scalable processes that perform with higher reliability and lower costs, holds promise for driving innovation in the face of challenges to team performance. A patient safety learning laboratory (lab) can be an essential aspect of fostering interdisciplinary team innovation across multiple projects and organizations by creating an ecosystem focused on deploying systems engineering methods to accomplish process redesign.

Purpose: We sought to identify the role and activities of a learning ecosystem that support interdisciplinary team innovation through evaluation of a patient safety learning lab.

Methods: Our study included three participating learning lab project teams. We applied a mixed-methods approach using a convergent design that combined data from qualitative interviews of team members conducted as teams neared the completion of their redesign projects, as well as evaluation questionnaires administered throughout the 4-year learning lab.

Results: Our results build on learning theories by showing that successful learning ecosystems continually create alignment between interdisciplinary teams' activities, organizational context, and innovation project objectives. The study identified four types of alignment, interpersonal/interprofessional, informational, structural, and processual, and supporting activities for alignment to occur.

Conclusion: Interdisciplinary learning ecosystems have the potential to foster health care improvement and innovation through alignment of team activities, project goals, and organizational contexts.

Practice implications: This study applies to interdisciplinary teams tackling multilevel system challenges in their health care organization and suggests that the work of such teams benefits from the four types of alignment. Alignment on all four dimensions may yield best results.

Background: Hospitals are increasingly engaging in partnerships to address population health in response to national policies, such as value-based payment models. However, little is known about how institutional factors influence hospital partnerships for population health.

Purpose: Guided by institutional theory, we examine the association between institutional pressures (coercive, normative, and mimetic isomorphism) and hospital partnerships for population health.

Methodology: A pooled cross-sectional analysis used an unbalanced panel of 10,777 hospital-year observations representing respondents to a supplemental question of the American Hospital Association's annual survey (2015-2017). The analysis included descriptive and bivariate statistics, and regression models that adjusted for repeated observations to examine the relationship between key independent variables and partnerships over time.

Findings: In regression analyses, we found the most support for measures of coercive (e.g., regulatory factors) isomorphism, with nonprofit status, participation in accountable care organizations, and acceptance of bundled payments, all being consistently and significantly associated with partnerships across all organization types. Modest increases were observed from 2015 to 2017 for hospital partnerships with public health organizations (+2.8% points, p < .001), governmental organizations (+2.0% points, p = .009), schools (+4.1% points, p < .001), and businesses (+2.2% points, p = .007).

Practice implications: Our results suggest that institutional factors, particularly those related to regulatory policies and programs, may influence hospital partnerships to support population health. Findings from this study can assist hospital leaders in assessing the factors that can support or impede the creation of partnerships to support their population health efforts.