What's up doc? Physicians' reflections on their sustainable employability throughout careers: a narrative inquiry.

BACKGROUND: Physicians have complex and demanding jobs that may negatively affect their sustainable employability (SE) and quality of care. Despite its societal and occupational relevance, empirical research on physicians' SE is scarce. To further advance our understanding of physicians' SE, this study explores how physicians perceive their employment context to affect their SE, how physicians self-regulate with the intent to sustain their employability, and how self-regulations affect physicians' SE and their employment context. METHODS: Twenty Dutch physicians from different specialisms were narratively interviewed between March and September 2021 by a researcher with a similar background (surgeon) to allow participants to speak in their own jargon. The interviews were analyzed collaboratively by the research team in accordance with theory-led thematic analysis. RESULTS: According to the interviewees, group dynamics, whether positive or negative, and (mis)matches between personal professional standards and group norms on professionalism, affect their SE in the long run. Interviewees self-regulate with the intent to sustain their employability by (I) influencing work; (II) influencing themselves; and (III) influencing others. Interviewees also reflect on long-term, unintended, and dysfunctional consequences of their self-regulations. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that physicians' SE develops from the interplay between the employment context in which they function and their self-regulations intended to sustain employability. As self-regulations may unintentionally contribute to dysfunctional work practices in the employment context, there is a potential for a vicious cycle. Insights from this study can be used to understand and appraise how physicians self-regulate to face complex challenges at work and to prevent both dysfunctional work practices that incite self-regulation and dysfunctional consequences resulting from self-regulations.

Grading recommendations for enhanced patient safety in sentinel event analysis: the recommendation improvement matrix.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of sentinel event (SE) analysis is to prevent recurrence. However, the rate of SEs has remained constant over the past years. Research suggests this is in part due to the quality of recommendations. Currently, standards for the selection of recommendations are lacking. Developing a method to grade recommendations could help in both designing and selecting interventions most likely to improve patient safety. The aim of this study was to (1) develop a user-friendly method to grade recommendations and (2) assess its applicability in a large series of Dutch perioperative SE analysis reports. METHODS: Based on two grading methods, we developed the recommendation improvement matrix (RIM). Applicability was assessed by analysing all Dutch perioperative SE reports over a 12-month period. After which interobserver agreement was studied. RESULTS: In the RIM, two elements are crucial: whether the recommendation intervenes before or after an SE and whether it eliminates or controls the hazard. Applicability was evaluated in 115 analysis reports, encompassing 161 recommendations. Recommendation quality varied from the highest, category A, to the lowest, category D, with category A accounting for 44%, category B for 35%, category C for 2% and category D for 19% of recommendations. There was a fair interobserver agreement. CONCLUSION: The RIM can be used to grade recommendations in SE analysis and could possibly help in both designing and selecting interventions. It is relatively simple, user-friendly and has the potential to improve patient safety. The RIM can help formulate effective and sustainable recommendations, a second key objective of the RIM is to foster and facilitate constructive dialogue among those responsible for patient safety.

Organizational attributes that contribute to the learning & improvement capabilities of healthcare organizations: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to explore and identify the organizational attributes that contribute to learning and improvement capabilities (L&IC) in healthcare organizations. The authors define learning as a structured update of system properties based on new information, and improvement as a closer correspondence between actual and desired standards. They highlight the importance of learning and improvement capabilities in maintaining high-quality care, and emphasize the need for empirical research on organizational attributes that contribute to these capabilities. The study has implications for healthcare organizations, professionals, and regulators in understanding how to assess and enhance learning and improvement capabilities. METHODS: A systematic search of peer-reviewed articles published between January 2010 and April 2020 was carried out in the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and APA PsycINFO databases. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts and conducted a full-text review of potentially relevant articles, eventually adding five more studies identified through reference scanning. Finally, a total of 32 articles were included in this review. We extracted the data about organizational attributes that contribute to learning and improvement, categorized them and grouped the findings step-by-step into higher, more general-level categories using an interpretive approach until categories emerged that were sufficiently different from each other while also being internally consistent. This synthesis has been discussed by the authors. RESULTS: We identified five attributes that contribute to the L&IC of healthcare organizations: perceived leadership commitment, open culture, room for team development, initiating and monitoring change, and strategic client focus, each consisting of multiple facilitating aspects. We also found some hindering aspects. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified five attributes that contribute to L&IC, mainly related to organizational software elements. Only a few are identified as organizational hardware elements. The use of qualitative methods seems most appropriate to understand or assess these organizational attributes. We feel it is also important for healthcare organisations to look more closely at how clients can be involved in L&IC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Role of the regulator in enabling a just culture: a qualitative study in mental health and hospital care.

OBJECTIVES: A just culture is considered a promising way to improve patient safety and working conditions in the healthcare sector, and as such is also of relevance to healthcare regulators who are tasked with monitoring and overseeing quality and safety of care. The objective of the current study is to explore the experiences in healthcare organisations regarding the role of the healthcare inspectorate in enabling a just culture. DESIGN: Qualitative study using interviews and focus groups that were transcribed verbatim, and observations of which written reports were made. Transcripts and observation reports were thematically analysed. SETTING: Three mental healthcare providers, two hospitals and the healthcare inspectorate in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: We conducted 61 interviews and 7 focus groups with healthcare professionals, managers and other staff in healthcare organisations and with inspectors. Additionally, 27 observations were conducted in healthcare organisations. RESULTS: We identified three themes in our data. First, professionals and managers in healthcare organisations perceive the inspectorate as a potential catalyst for learning processes, for example, as an instigator of investigating incidents thoroughly, yet also as a potential barrier as its presence and procedures limit how open employees feel they can be. Second, a just culture is considered relational and layered, meaning that relationships between different layers within or outside the organisation might hinder or promote a just culture. Finally, for inspectors to enable a just culture requires finding a balance between allowing organisations the time to take responsibility for quality and safety issues, and timely regulatory intervention when healthcare providers are unwilling or unable to act. CONCLUSIONS: If regulators intend to enable the development of a just culture within healthcare organisations, they must adopt regulatory procedures that support reflection and learning within the organisations they regulate and consider mutual trust as a vital regulatory tool.

Management and reporting of safety incidents by residential care facilities in Ireland: A thematic analysis of statutory notifications.

The prevention of safety incidents (SI) in health and social care settings is an ongoing undertaking. Limited research has been conducted on SIs outside of acute care. Internationally residential care facilities (RCFs) are typically regulated to promote quality and safeguarding. A part of this regulation is the statutory responsibility of RCFs to notify the regulator about SIs. Notifications include details surrounding SIs and are used to inform the regulatory monitoring approach. The recent development of the Database of Statutory Notifications from Social Care in Ireland facilitates in-depth analysis of notifications which can be used to inform the management of SIs and thus, improve quality and safety. The aim of this study was to analyse narratives provided in statutory notifications for older persons and people with disability, in order to identify current management of SIs, system vulnerabilities and reporting practices. A Qualitative Descriptive approach was taken. A random sample of notifications received in 2018 was drawn and stratified by service-type and notification-type. Data extraction was conducted against priori agreed target areas of management, system vulnerabilities and reporting practices. Inductive thematic analysis was used identifying two parent themes: 'chronology' and 'regulatory input'. 'Chronology' subthemes included 'pre-event', 'immediate response' and 'continued response'. Measures that are resident focused and follow policies and protocols in RCFs to prevent or mitigate the seriousness of SIs were evident in the immediate response and continued response. The actions taken in the immediate and continued response in turn became part of the pre-event of future SIs. Under 'regulatory input' subthemes included 'inaccurate reporting', 'lines of inquiry', 'requests for further information', 'identification of repetitive patterns' and 'satisfactory conclusion'. In conclusion, RCFs manage SIs with short and longer term actions focused on resident wellbeing. These actions in turn become part of the pre-event of future SIs. Regulatory input highlighted regulatory burden.

Epistemic Injustice in Incident Investigations: A Qualitative Study.

Serious incident investigations-often conducted by means of Root Cause Analysis methodologies-are increasingly seen as platforms to learn from multiple perspectives and experiences: professionals, patients and their families alike. Underlying this principle of inclusiveness is the idea that healthcare staff and service users hold unique and valuable knowledge that can inform learning, as well as the notion that learning is a social process that involves people actively reflecting on shared knowledge. Despite initiatives to facilitate inclusiveness, research shows that embracing and learning from diverse perspectives is difficult. Using the concept of 'epistemic injustice', pointing at practices of someone's knowledge being unjustly disqualified or devalued, we analyze the way incident investigations are organized and executed with the aim to understand why it is difficult to embrace and learn from the multiple perspectives voiced in incident investigations. We draw from 73 semi-structured interviews with healthcare leaders, managers, healthcare professionals, incident investigators and inspectors, document analyses and ethnographic observations. Our analysis identified several structures in the incident investigation process, that can promote or hinder an actor's epistemic contribution in the process of incident investigations. Rather than repeat calls to 'involve more' and 'listen better', we encourage policy makers to be mindful of and address the structures that can cause epistemic injustice. This can improve the outcome of incident investigations and can help to do justice to the lived experiences of the involved actors in the aftermath of a serious incident.

Government Actions and Their Relation to Resilience in Healthcare; What We See Is Not Always What We Get Comment on "Government Actions and Their Relation to Resilience in Healthcare During the COVID-19 Pandemic in New South Wales, Australia and Ontario, Canada".

This commentary reviews the publication by Smaggus et al published in the IJHPM in July 2021 on "Government Actions and Their Relation to Resilience in Healthcare During the COVID-19 Pandemic in New South Wales, Australia and Ontario, Canada" which analysed media releases to identify how governments contributed to resilience in healthcare (RiH). We suggest media releases might not be the best data to capture the mechanisms, activities and interactions through which government actions enhance or hinder RiH. RiH recognizes healthcare as a complex sociotechnical system, so studies into fostering capacity for RiH should be designed for complex sociotechnical systems. This means data should be derived from multiple sources to allow for diverse perspectives, and preferably include direct observations to capture the intricacies of backstage interactions.

Public Reporting of Adverse Events From Long-Term Care Facilities for Older Persons and People With Disability in Ireland 2013-2019: Development of an Openly Accessible Database and Descriptive Analyses.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the development of an analyzable database of statutory notifications received from long-term care facilities (LTCFs) and to describe trends in receipt of notifications from 2013 to 2019. DESIGN: Description of database development with descriptive and trend analyses. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: LTCFs for older persons and for people with disability in Ireland. METHODS: Data on notifications received and on centers were extracted from a system internal to the health and social services regulator and combined into an analyzable database. Variables were screened for personal information, cleaned, transformed, or redacted and combined into a database suitable for open access publication. Descriptive analyses of the volume of notifications, trends over time and breakdown by service type, notification type, and risk-rating were conducted. RESULTS: The Database of Statutory Notifications from Social Care in Ireland was developed and an open access version published in February 2021. Protection of personal data was an important consideration in publishing the data publicly. Uses of the database include examination of national trends and identification of determinants of adverse events and areas for quality improvement. The number of notifications received increased over time. Quarterly notifications contributed to the largest proportion of notifications (older persons, 36.7%; disability, 39.1%). This was followed by serious injury notifications in LTCFs for older persons (33.3%) and abuse allegation notifications in LTCFs for people with disability (36.0%). Less than 1% of individual notifications were risk-rated red (highest severity level of impact on resident welfare). The types of notifications that were collectively risk-rated highest were staff misconduct, abuse allegations, and outbreaks of infectious disease. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The methodology and findings can inform publications of notifications, planning and resourcing for receipt and submission of notifications, target areas for quality improvement initiatives, mandating of timelines for receipt of notifications, and the mandating of notifications in legislation.

Sexual abuse of people with intellectual disabilities in residential settings: a 3-year analysis of incidents reported to the Dutch Health and Youth Care Inspectorate.

OBJECTIVES: To explore characteristics of sexual abuse within residential settings for people with an intellectual disability and to map out measures undertaken and improvement plans made by healthcare organisations after sexual abuse. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis of reports about sexual violence against persons with an intellectual disability submitted to the Dutch Health and Youth Care Inspectorate by healthcare organisations. SETTING: Residential settings for people with an intellectual disability in The Netherlands. SELECTION: 186 incident reports submitted to the Inspectorate between January 2017 and December 2019 were included. RESULTS: 125 incident reports concerned sexual abuse by fellow clients and 61 reports concerned sexual abuse by professionals. Client perpetrators were predominantly male whereas almost 30% of the abusing professionals were female. The majority of the perpetrating professionals were unlicensed professionals. Clients who committed sexual abuse were mostly relocated to another residential setting. Most healthcare organisations invested in education and training for employees instead of improving the sexual education programme for clients after an incident of sexual abuse. If there was a strong suspicion of sexual abuse by a professional, resignation followed in most cases. In just two cases, the perpetrating professional was reported to a warning registry. CONCLUSIONS: A small amount of the perpetrating professionals held a licensed profession, which makes it challenging to address this form of sexual abuse through healthcare regulation. It raises the question why warning registries are not engaged more often after alleged sexual abuse. Constantly relocating abusing clients might endanger the (sexual) safety of clients in these new environments. Previous literature suggests that adequate sexual education regarding social skills and sexual behaviour is very effective for the majority of clients who commit sexual abuse. Healthcare organisations could take up a more prominent role in this to ensure safety for their own clients and for clients residing elsewhere.

Criteria for recommendations after perioperative sentinel events.

BACKGROUND: The recurrence of sentinel events (SEs) is a persistent problem worldwide, despite repeated analyses and recommendations formulated to prevent recurrence. Research suggests this is partly attributable to the quality of the recommendations, and determining if a recommendation will be effective is not yet covered by an adequate guideline. Our objectives were to (1) develop and validate criteria for high-quality recommendations, and (2) evaluate recommendations using the criteria developed. METHODS: (1) Criteria were developed by experts using the bowtie method. Medical doctors then determined if the recommendations of Dutch in-hospital SE analysis reports met the criteria, after which interobserver variability was tested. (2) Researchers determined which recommendations of Dutch perioperative SE analysis reports produced from 2017 to 2018 met the criteria. RESULTS: The criteria were: (1) a recommendation needs to be well defined and clear, (2) it needs to specifically describe the intended changes, and (3) it needs to describe how it will reduce the risk or limit the consequences of a similar SE. Validation of criteria showed substantial interobserver agreement. The SE analysis reports (n=115) contained 442 recommendations, of which 64% failed to meet all criteria, and 28% of reports did not contain a single recommendation that met the criteria. CONCLUSION: We developed and validated criteria for high-quality recommendations. The majority of recommendations did not meet our criteria. It was disconcerting to find that over a quarter of the investigations did not produce a single recommendation that met the criteria, not even in SEs with a fatal outcome. Healthcare providers have an obligation to prevent SEs, and certainly their recurrence. We anticipate that using these criteria to determine the potential of recommendations will aid in this endeavour.

Publication of inspection frameworks: a qualitative study exploring the impact on quality improvement and regulation in three healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: The Dutch healthcare inspectorate publishes its inspection frameworks to inform both the public and healthcare providers about regulatory procedures and in the hope that publication will motivate healthcare providers to improve quality and comply with standards. This study explores the consequences of publishing these frameworks for the regulation of quality and safety in healthcare. METHODS: We selected recently published inspection frameworks used in three healthcare settings: nursing home care, dental care and hospital care. We conducted 37 interviews with 39 respondents (healthcare professionals, managers, quality officers, policy advisers and inspectors) and explored their awareness of and experiences with these frameworks. We held a group interview with three inspectors to reflect on our findings. All data underwent thematic content analysis. RESULTS: We found that the institutional infrastructure of a sector plays an important role in how an inspection framework is used after publication; particularly the presence and maturity of quality improvement work in the sector and the inspectorate's grip on a sector matter. Respondents mentioned differences in framework use in organisational contexts, particularly relating to scale. In some organisations, the framework served as an accountability mechanism to check if quality meets basic standards, while in other organisations professionals adopted it to stimulate discussion and learning across teams. CONCLUSION: Publication of inspection frameworks might result in quality improvement work, and in particular contexts could be used as a regulatory strategy to target quality improvement in a healthcare sector. For this, it is important that regulators consider the capabilities and possibilities for learning and improving within a sector.

How incident reporting systems can stimulate social and participative learning: A mixed-methods study.

Incident reporting systems (IRSs) have been widely adopted in healthcare, calling for the investigation of serious incidents to understand what causes patient harm. In this article, we study how the Dutch IRS contributed to social and participative learning from incidents. We integrate quantitative and qualitative data in a mixed-methods design. Between 1 July 2013 and 31 March 2019, Dutch hospitals reported and investigated 4667 incidents. Healthcare inspectors scored all investigations to assess hospitals' learning process following incidents. We analysed if and on what aspects hospitals improved over time. Additionally, we draw from semi-structured interviews with incident investigators, quality managers, healthcare inspectors and healthcare professionals. Healthcare inspectors score incident investigation reports better over time, suggesting that hospitals conduct better investigations or have become adept at writing reports in line with inspectors' expectations. Our qualitative data suggests the IRS contributed to practices that support social and participative learning-the professionalisation of incident investigation teams, the increased involvement of patients and families in investigations-and practices that do not-not linking learning from the investigation teams to that of professionals, not consistently monitoring the recommendations that investigations identify. The IRS both hits and misses the mark. We learned that IRSs need to be responsive to the (developing) capabilities of healthcare providers to investigate and learn from incidents, if the IRS is to stimulate social and participative learning from incidents.

A discrete choice experiment to identify the most efficient quality indicators for the supervision of psychiatric hospitals.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, health care is regulated by the Health and Youth Care Inspectorate. Forty-six indicators are used to prioritize supervision of psychiatric hospitals. The objective of this study is to define a smaller set of weighted indicators which reflects a consensus among inspectors about which aspects are most important for risk assessment. METHODS: The set of 46 indicators, complemented with missing information, was reduced to six indicators by means of interviews, group discussions and ranking among the inspectors. These indicators were used as attributes in a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to define their weights. RESULTS: Twenty-six inspectors defined the top four indicators suitable for the risk assessment of psychiatric hospitals. These are: the policy on prevention of compulsory treatment; the policy on dysfunctional professionals; the quality of internal research after a serious incident; and the implementation of multidisciplinary guidelines on suicidal behaviour. These indicators share the same importance with regard to risk assessment. The screening of somatic symptoms and the policy on integrated care are important indicators too, but less relevant. CONCLUSION: Through a DCE, we reduced the amount of information for risk assessment of psychiatric hospitals to six weighted indicators. Inspectors can use these indicators to prioritize their inspections.

Patient and family engagement in incident investigations: exploring hospital manager and incident investigators' experiences and challenges.

Objective There is growing recognition among health care providers and policy makers that when things go wrong, the patient or their families should be heard and participate in the incident investigation process. This paper explores how Dutch hospitals organize patient or family engagement in incident investigations, maps out incident investigators' experiences of involving patients or their families in incident investigations and identifies the challenges encountered. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with managers and incident investigators in 13 Dutch hospitals. Study participants (n = 18) were asked about the incident investigation routines and their experiences of involving affected patients or family members. Interview transcripts were coded and analysed using thematic content analysis. Results Our findings reveal that patient or family involvement in incident investigations is typically organized as a one-time interview event. Interviews with patients or their families were considered to be valuable and important in their own right and seen as a way to do justice to the individual needs of the patient or their family. Yet, the usefulness and validity of the patient or family perspective for incident investigations was often seen to be limited, with the professional perspective afforded more weight. This was particularly the case when the patient or their family were unable to provide verifiable details of the incident under investigation. Study participants described challenges when involving patients or family members, including in relation to the available timeframe for incident investigations, legal issues, managing trust and working with intense emotions. Conclusions We propose that by placing patient and family criteria of significance at the centre of incident investigations (i.e. an 'emic' research approach), hospitals may be able to expand their learning potential and improve patient-centeredness following an incident.

Involving Patients and Families in the Analysis of Suicides, Suicide Attempts, and Other Sentinel Events in Mental Healthcare: A Qualitative Study in The Netherlands.

Involving patients and families in mental healthcare is becoming more commonplace, but little is known about how they are involved in the aftermath of serious adverse events related to quality of care (sentinel events, including suicides). This study explores the role patients and families have in formal processes after sentinel events in Dutch mental healthcare. We analyzed the existing policies of 15 healthcare organizations and spoke with 35 stakeholders including patients, families, their counselors, the national regulator, and professionals. Respondents argue that involving patients and families is valuable to help deal with the event emotionally, provide additional information, and prevent escalation. Results indicate that involving patients and families is only described in sentinel event policies to a limited extent. In practice, involvement consists mostly of providing aftercare and sharing information about the event by providers. Complexities such as privacy concerns and involuntary admissions are said to hinder involvement. Respondents also emphasize that involvement should not be obligatory and stress the need for patients and families to be involved throughout the process of treatment. There is no one-size-fits-all strategy for involving patients and families after sentinel events. The first step seems to be early involvement during treatment process itself.

The role of the patient in patient safety: What can we learn from healthcare's history?

Many nations, healthcare organizations and interest groups are addressing the question of how patients can best be involved in designing and executing patient safety policy. Looking back at how patient engagement has developed in healthcare, we can draw lessons on how to engage patients in patient safety.