Understanding the legacies of shocks on health system performance: Exploring Ireland's management of recent crises and its implications for policy.

This paper contrasts the Irish experience of the 2008 economic crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic, and the health system responses to these shocks, from the perspective of health system leaders working across both time periods. Based on semi-structured interviews with seven senior national and international officials, the research presented here forms the qualitative component of RESTORE, a five-year research project examining health system resilience and reform, funded through the Health Research Board's Research Leader Award in Ireland. Findings indicate that the financial crisis deeply impacted the Irish health system in relation to infrastructure and capacity, service delivery and workforce. Due to these legacy issues, Ireland's health system was in a relatively weak position when faced with the Covid-19 pandemic but the system proved adaptive and innovative during this time. Furthermore, the pandemic proved to be a catalyst for positive change, providing opportunities for long-term reform, alongside an immediate response to the crisis. This was facilitated by increased funding, a devolution in decision-making structures and a political commitment to the health system. Exploring lessons from the Irish response to these crises provides a case study for developing appropriate policy responses around financing and resource allocation, fostering support for healthcare among political leaders and policy makers, and preparing for future shocks. Furthermore, examining these experiences facilitates understanding around the impact of each crisis on the health system, exploring options for addressing legacy issues and considering practical steps to improve health system performance.

Metrics and indicators used to assess health system resilience in response to shocks to health systems in high income countries-A systematic review.

Health system resilience has never been more important than with the COVID-19 pandemic. There is need to identify feasible measures of resilience, potential strategies to build resilience and weaknesses of health systems experiencing shocks. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine how the resilience of health systems has been measured across various health system shocks. Following PRISMA guidelines, with double screening at each stage, the review identified 3175 studies of which 68 studies were finally included for analysis. Almost half (46%) were focused on COVID-19, followed by the economic crises, disasters and previous pandemics. Over 80% of studies included quantitative metrics. The most common WHO health system functions studied were resources and service delivery. In relation to the shock cycle, most studies reported metrics related to the management stage (79%) with the fewest addressing recovery and learning (22%). Common metrics related to staff headcount, staff wellbeing, bed number and type, impact on utilisation and quality, public and private health spending, access and coverage, and information systems. Limited progress has been made with developing standardised qualitative metrics particularly around governance. Quantitative metrics need to be analysed in relation to change and the impact of the shock. The review notes problems with measuring preparedness and the fact that few studies have really assessed the legacy or enduring impact of shocks.