Hospital Governance During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multiple-Country Case Study.

In response to the disruptions caused by COVID-19, hospitals around the world proactively or reactively developed and/or re-organized their governance structures to manage the COVID-19 response. Hospitals' governance played a crucial role in their ability to reorganize and respond to the pressing needs of their staff. We discuss and compare six hospital cases from four countries on different continents: Brazil, Canada, France, and Japan. Our study examined how governance strategies (e.g., special task forces, communications management tools, etc.) were perceived by hospital staff. Key findings from a total of 177 qualitative interviews with diverse hospital stakeholders were analyzed using three categories drawn from the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies framework on health systems resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic: 1) delivering a clear and timely COVID-19 response strategy; 2) coordinating effectively within (horizontally) and across (vertically) levels of decision-making; and 3) communicating clearly and transparently with the hospital's diverse stakeholders. Our study gleaned rich accounts for these three categories, highlighting significant variations across settings. These variations were primarily determined by the hospitals' environment prior to the COVID-19 crisis, namely whether there already existed a culture of managerial openness (including spaces for social interactions among hospital staff) and whether preparedness planning and training had been routinely integrated into their activities.

How resilience affected public health research during COVID-19 and why we should abandon it.

Resilience has accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic as a rallying motto, with calls by governments for a resilient society, resilient families and schools, and, of course, resilient healthcare systems in the face of this unprecedented pandemic shock. Resilience had already gained traction as an analytical concept in public health research for approximately a decade. It became a key concept despite the recognition of its lack of conceptual consistency. The COVID-19 pandemic presented itself as a perfect test-case and encouraged a multiplicity of studies on resilience and health care systems. In this commentary, we add to the existing critiques of resilience in the social sciences by reflecting on the effects of resilience when used to frame empirical inquiries and to draw lessons from the crisis. Resilience as a concept is unable to address crucial structural issues that health systems already faced throughout the world, and it remains a non-neutral political notion. We argue that we need to resist a generalised view of resilience and work with alternative imaginaries.

Adapting Hospital Work During COVID-19 in Quebec (Canada).

Among hospital responses to the COVID19 pandemic worldwide, service reorganization and staff reassignment have been some of the most prominent ways of adapting hospital work to the expected influx of patients. In this article, we examine work reorganization induced by the pandemic by identifying the operational strategies implemented by two hospitals and their staff to contend with the crisis and then analyzing the implications of those strategies. We base our description and analysis on two hospital case studies in Quebec. We used a multiple case study approach, wherein each hospital is considered a unique case. In both cases, work adaptation through staff reassignment was one of the critical measures undertaken to ensure absorption of the influx of patients into the hospitals. Our results showed that this general strategy was designed and applied differently in the two cases. More specifically, the reassignment strategies revealed numerous healthcare resource disparities not only between health territories, but also between different types of facilities within those territories. Comparing the two hospitals' adaptation strategies showed that past reforms in Quebec determined what these reorganizations could achieve, as well as how they would affect workers and the meaning they gave to their work.

How Did an Integrated Health and Social Services Center in the Quebec Province Respond to the COVID-19 Pandemic? A Qualitative Case Study.

During the first and second waves of the pandemic, Quebec was among the Canadian provinces with the highest COVID-19 mortality rates. Facing particularly large COVID-19 outbreaks in its facilities, an integrated health and social services center in the province of Quebec (Canada), developed resilience strategies. To explore these diverse responses to the crisis, we conducted a case study analysis of a Quebec integrated health and social services center, building on a conceptualization of resilience strategies using "configurations" of effects, strategies, and impacts. Qualitative data from 14 indepth interviews conducted in the summer and fall of 2020 with managers and frontline practitioners were analyzed through the lens of situations of "anticipation," "reaction," or "inaction." The findings were discussed in three results dissemination workshops, two with practitioners and one with managers, to discern lessons they learned. Three major configurations emerged: 1) reorganization of services and spaces to accommodate more COVID-19 patients; 2) management of contamination risks for patients and professionals; and 3) management of personal protective equipment (PPE), supplies, and medications. Within these configurations, the responses to the crisis were strongly shaped by the 2015 health care system reforms in Quebec and were constrained by organizational challenges that included a centralized model of governance, a history of substantial budget cuts to longterm care facilities, and a systematic lack of human resources.

Community Pharmacists and Influenza Vaccination: Opportunities and Challenges From a Public Health Perspective.

CONTEXT: In Quebec, Bill 31, adopted on March 18, 2020, extended vaccination to pharmacists. Despite many advantages, this new practice comes with public health issues reinforced in the context of COVID-19. Therefore, it is essential to understand the opportunities and challenges of the participation of community pharmacists in influenza vaccination, from a public health perspective by (i) describing the year of 2020-2021 influenza vaccination offer, (ii) its opportunities and challenges, and (iii) its impact on the accessibility of this service newly offered by pharmacists to the most vulnerable people. METHODS: This research is a case study from one of the most affected areas by COVID-19 in Canada: Laval. Our method combines documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews with health professionals and public health actors (n = 23). Researchers used a thematic analysis to analyze these results. RESULTS: Most partners (pharmacists, public health administrators) underlined multiple opportunities of this new practice, ie, pharmacists who can vaccinate, particularly for chronically ill patients. However, structural and strategical challenges remain. More specifically, vaccination seemed to only rely on a "first come, first served" basis, which questions public health objectives of vaccination, such as equitable access. CONCLUSION: The introduction of new actors, such as pharmacists, represents a major opportunity to improve vaccination coverage and reduce the burden of COVID-19 on the health system. However, this delegation of a public health activity to the private sector undoubtedly requires closer coordination with public health institutions.

Implementation of targeted deprescribing of potentially inappropriate medications in patients on hemodialysis.

PURPOSE: Patients on hemodialysis have a high risk of medication-related problems. Studies using deprescribing algorithms to reduce the number of inappropriate medications in this population have been published, but none have used a patient-partnership approach. Our study evaluated the impact of a similar intervention with a patient-partnership approach. METHODS: The objective was to describe the implementation of a pharmacist-led intervention with a patient-partnership approach using deprescribing algorithms and its impact on the reduction of inappropriate medications in patients on hemodialysis. Eight algorithms were developed by pharmacists and nephrologists to assess the appropriateness of medications. Pharmacists identified patients taking targeted medications. Following patient enrollment, pharmacists assessed medications with patients and applied the algorithms. With patient consent, deprescription was suggested to nephrologists if applicable. Specific data on each targeted medication were collected at 4 and 16 weeks. Descriptive statistics were used to examine the effects of the deprescribing intervention. RESULTS: Of 270 patients, 256 were taking at least one targeted medication. Of the 122 patients taking at least one targeted medication who were approached to participate, 66 were included in the study. At enrollment, these patients were taking 252 targeted medications, of which 59 (23.4%) were determined to be inappropriate. Deprescription was initiated for 35 of these 59 medications (59.3%). At 4 weeks, 33 of the 59 medications (55.9%) were still deprescribed, while, at 16 weeks, 27 of the 59 medications (45.8%) were still deprescribed. Proton pump inhibitors and benzodiazepines or Z-drugs were the most common inappropriate medications, and allopurinol was the most deprescribed medication. CONCLUSION: A pharmacist-led intervention with a patient-partnership approach and using deprescribing algorithms reduced the number of inappropriate medications in patients on hemodialysis.

Learning from public health and hospital resilience to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: protocol for a multiple case study (Brazil, Canada, China, France, Japan, and Mali).

BACKGROUND: All prevention efforts currently being implemented for COVID-19 are aimed at reducing the burden on strained health systems and human resources. There has been little research conducted to understand how SARS-CoV-2 has affected health care systems and professionals in terms of their work. Finding effective ways to share the knowledge and insight between countries, including lessons learned, is paramount to the international containment and management of the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this project is to compare the pandemic response to COVID-19 in Brazil, Canada, China, France, Japan, and Mali. This comparison will be used to identify strengths and weaknesses in the response, including challenges for health professionals and health systems. METHODS: We will use a multiple case study approach with multiple levels of nested analysis. We have chosen these countries as they represent different continents and different stages of the pandemic. We will focus on several major hospitals and two public health interventions (contact tracing and testing). It will employ a multidisciplinary research approach that will use qualitative data through observations, document analysis, and interviews, as well as quantitative data based on disease surveillance data and other publicly available data. Given that the methodological approaches of the project will be largely qualitative, the ethical risks are minimal. For the quantitative component, the data being used will be made publicly available. DISCUSSION: We will deliver lessons learned based on a rigorous process and on strong evidence to enable operational-level insight for national and international stakeholders.

Pandemics in the age of the Anthropocene: Is 'planetary health' the answer?

Some observers have described the coronavirus pandemic as an 'Anthropocene disease,' thereby highlighting its connection with this new ecological era that is characterised by the considerable pressure human activities are exerting on ecosystems and the consequences on public health, society and the environment. This article focuses on the recent emergence of the 'Planetary Health' paradigm. Launched by the Rockefeller Foundation and the medical journal The Lancet, Planetary Health is one of the most ambitious attempts in recent years to systematize global health in the Anthropocene. While recognising the interest and necessity of reflecting on human health and the health of the planet, this article aims to show, however, that the Planetary Health paradigm is problematic and aporetic for two reasons. First, because it is based on a scientistic and depoliticised conception of the Anthropocene, which obscures capitalism's responsibility for the contemporary global and, especially, ecological crisis. Second, because this conception leads to a promotion of solutions that are essentially based on the financialization and technoscientific management of the living world - precisely the underlying cause of the degradation of ecosystems and living conditions that created the Anthropocene in the first place. A different kind of 'planetary health' remains possible and desirable.