Dataset Information

Relationship between management and resilience in healthcare: a study protocol for a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Management has been identified as a critical component of organisational resilience when responding to adverse events and crises, as managers must ensure an effective operational response and provide direction and guidance to teams. While there are many management approaches, strategies and interventions that have been applied and studied in healthcare, the impact of them in relation to resilience in healthcare has not been explored, particularly at the organisational level. Understanding the impact of management approaches, strategies and interventions on resilience has the potential to inform healthcare organisations on how to better use management to prepare and respond to organisational adverse events. The objective of this mixed-methods systematic review is to understand the relationship between management and organisational resilience in healthcare, including management approaches and strategies that promote resilience in healthcare.

Methods and analysis

A search through MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PubMed and EMBASE will be conducted between 1 August 2021 and 31 December 21. This review will consider empirical quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies published in English from 2010 to the present that meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Selected studies will be assessed in detail and extracted data will be reviewed by two independent reviewers. Results of the search will be reported in full in the final systematic review and presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis flow diagram. This review will follow a convergent integrated approach to data synthesis and integration.

Ethics and dissemination

This systematic literature review includes no collection of primary data; hence ethical approval will not be sought. The outcomes from this review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal, as conference presentation, and as condensed summary for managers in healthcare and policy-makers.

Prospero registration number

CRD42020223362.

SUBMITTER: Petersen EE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8291312 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Gastroschisis is a congenital anomaly that needs surgical management for repositioning intestines into the abdominal cavity and for abdominal closure. Higher hospital or surgeon volume has previously been found to be associated with better clinical outcomes for different especially high-risk, low volume procedures. Therefore, we aim to examine the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and outcomes for gastroschisis. METHODS:We will perform a systematic literature search from inception onwards in Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Biosis Previews without applying any limitations. In addition, we will search trial registries and relevant conference proceedings. We will include (cluster-) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective or retrospective cohort studies analyzing the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and clinical outcomes. The primary outcomes will be survival and mortality. Secondary outcomes will be different measures of morbidity (e.g., severe gastrointestinal complications, gastrointestinal dysfunctions, and sepsis), quality of life, and length of stay. We will systematically assess risk of bias of included studies using RoB 2 for individually or cluster-randomized trials and ROBINS-I for cohort studies, and extract data on the study design, patient characteristics, case-mix adjustments, statistical methods, hospital and surgeon volume, and outcomes into standardized tables. Title and abstract screening, full text screening, critical appraisal, and data extraction of results will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Other data will be extracted by one reviewer and checked for accuracy by a second one. Any disagreements will be resolved by discussion. We will not pool results statistically as we expect included studies to be clinically and methodologically very diverse. We will conduct a systematic synthesis without meta-analysis and use GRADE for assessing the certainty of the evidence. DISCUSSION:Given the lack of a comprehensive summary of findings on the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and outcomes for gastroschisis, this systematic review will put things right. Results can be used to inform decision makers or clinicians and to adapt medical care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:Open Science Framework (DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EX34M ; https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HGPZ2 ).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical practice guidelines for the management of complex chronic conditions in older adults encourage healthcare providers to engage patients in shared decision-making about self-management goals and actions. Yet, healthcare decision-making and communication for this population can pose significant challenges. As a result, healthcare professionals may struggle to help patients define and prioritise their values, goals, and preferences in ways that are clinically and personally meaningful, incorporating physical functioning and quality of life, when faced with numerous diagnostic and treatment alternatives. The aim of this systematic review is to locate and synthesise a body of fine-grained observational research on communication between professionals, older adults, and carers regarding self-management in audio/audio-visually recorded naturalistic interactions. METHODS/DESIGN:The paper describes a systematic review of the published conversation analytic and discourse analytic research, using an aggregative thematic approach and following the PRISMA-P guidelines. This review will include studies reporting on adult patients (female or male) aged ? 60?years whose consultations are conducted in English in any healthcare setting and stakeholders involved in their care, e.g. general practitioners, nurses, allied health professionals, and family carers. We will search nine electronic databases and the grey literature and two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts to identify potential studies. Discrepancies will be resolved via consultation with the review team. The methodological quality of the final set of included studies will be appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research and a detailed description of the characteristics of the included studies using a customised template. DISCUSSION:This is the first systematic review to date to locate and synthesise the conversation analytic research on how healthcare professionals raise and pursue talk about self-management with older adults in routine clinical interactions. Amalgamating these findings will enable the identification of effective and potentially trainable communication practices for engaging older adults in healthcare decision-making about the self-management goals and actions that enable the greatest possible health and quality of life in older adulthood. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42019139376.

Project description:IntroductionThe global burden of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is steadily increasing. Experimental studies have demonstrated that a novel hormone secreted by bone cells, osteocalcin (OC), can stimulate beta-cell proliferation and improve insulin sensitivity in mice. Observational studies in humans have investigated the relationship between OC and metabolic parameters, and T2DM. Importantly, few studies have reported on the undercarboxylated form of OC (ucOC), which is the putative active form of OC suggested to affect glucose metabolism.ObjectivesWe will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to: (1) compare the levels of serum OC and ucOC between T2DM and normal glucose-tolerant controls (NGC); (2) investigate the risk ratios between serum OC and ucOC, and T2DM; (3) determine the correlation coefficient between OC and ucOC and fasting insulin levels, homeostatic model assessment-insulin resistance, haemoglobin A1c and fasting glucose levels and (4) explore potential sources of between-study heterogeneity. The secondary objective is to compare the serum OC and ucOC between pre-diabetes (PD) and NGC and between T2DM and PD.Hods and analysisThis study will report items in line with the guidelines outlined in preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology. We will include observational studies (cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies) and intervention studies with baseline data. Three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and SCOPUS) will be searched from inception until July 2018 without language restrictions. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts and conduct a full-text assessment to identify eligible studies. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus with a third reviewer. The risk of bias assessment will be conducted by two reviewers independently based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Potential sources of between-study heterogeneity will be tested using meta-regression/subgroup analyses. Contour-enhanced funnel plots and Egger's test will be used to identify potential publication bias.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval is not required. We will disseminate the results to a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentation.Prospero registration numberCRD42017073127.

Project description:BackgroundCongenital diaphragmatic hernia is a rare and life-threatening anomaly that occurs during fetal development and results in an incomplete or incorrect formation of the diaphragm. Surgical therapy of the diaphragm should be performed after clinical stabilization of the neonate. Higher hospital or surgeon volume has previously been found to be associated with better clinical outcomes for different especially high-risk, low-volume procedures. Therefore, we aim to examine the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and outcomes for congenital diaphragmatic hernia.MethodsThis systematic review protocol has been designed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocol. We will perform a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Biosis Previews without applying any limitations. In addition, we will search for relevant conference abstracts. We will screen titles and abstracts of retrieved studies, obtain potentially relevant full texts, and assess the eligibility of those full texts against our inclusion criteria. We will include comparative studies analyzing the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and clinical outcomes. We will systematically assess risk of bias of included studies and extract data on the study design, patient characteristics, case-mix adjustments, statistical methods, hospital and surgeon volume, and outcomes into standardized tables. Title and abstract screening, full-text screening, critical appraisal, and data extraction of results will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Other data will be extracted by one reviewer and checked for accuracy by a second one. Any disagreements will be resolved by discussion. We will not perform a meta-analysis as we expect included studies to be clinically and methodologically very diverse. We will synthesize findings from primary studies in a structured narrative way and using GRADE.DiscussionGiven the lack of a comprehensive summary of findings on the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and outcomes for congenital diaphragmatic hernia, this systematic review will put things right. Results can be used to inform decision makers or clinicians and to adapt medical care.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO ( CRD42018090231 ).

Project description:BackgroundThe objective of this systematic review of diverse evidence was to examine the relationship between health system governance and workforce outcomes. Particular attention was paid to how governance mechanisms facilitate change in the workforce to ensure the effective use of all health providers.MethodsIn accordance with standard systematic review procedures, the research team independently screened over 4300 abstracts found in database searches, website searches, and bibliographies. Searches were limited to 2001-2012, included only publications from Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia, and the United States. Peer- reviewed papers and grey literature were considered. Two reviewers independently rated articles on quality and relevance and classified them into themes identified by the team. One hundred and thirteen articles that discussed both workforce and governance were retained and extracted into narrative summary tables for synthesis.ResultsSix types of governance mechanisms emerged from our analysis. Shared governance, Magnet accreditation, and professional development initiatives were all associated with improved outcomes for the health workforce (e.g., decreased turnover, increased job satisfaction, increased empowerment, etc.). Implementation of quality-focused initiatives was associated with apprehension among providers, but opportunities for provider training on these initiatives increased quality and improved work attitudes. Research on reorganization of healthcare delivery suggests that changing to team-based care is accompanied by stress and concerns about role clarity, that outcomes vary for providers in private versus public organizations, and that co-operative clinics are beneficial for physicians. Funding schemes required a supplementary search to achieve adequate depth and coverage. Those findings are reported elsewhere.ConclusionsThe results of the review show that while there are governance mechanisms that consider workforce impacts, it is not to the extent one might expect given the importance of the workforce for improving patient outcomes. Furthermore, to successfully implement governance mechanisms in this domain, there are key strategies recommended to support change and achieve desired outcomes. The most important of these are: to build trust by clearly articulating the organization's goal; considering the workforce through planning, implementation, and evaluation phases; and providing strong leadership.

Project description:IntroductionResilience in healthcare (RiH) can be conceptualised as the adaptive capacities of a healthcare system that allow it to maintain the delivery of high-quality care during and after events that challenge, change or disrupt its activities. These adaptive capacities require collaborative learning and working, as the complexities of changes and challenges can rarely be addressed by individuals alone or single healthcare disciplinary knowledge. So, there is a need to understand how collaborative learning practices can be developed and supported both intra and inter disciplinary in healthcare. The aim of the study is to explore the relationship between collaborative learning, and resilience to establish a framework that supports the development and application of adaptive capacities across diverse healthcare contexts and levels. Collaborative learning is premised on learning as something that occurs continuously through everyday work in the healthcare systems as professionals engaging in clinical work, and interacting with other coworkers, patients and stakeholders making local adaptations in respond to needs.Method and analysisThe study applies a mixed methods design in a two-phased approach to explore and develop the relationship between collaborative learning and resilience. Phase One is exploratory using literature review, meta-synthesis, interviews and focus groups as data collection methods in empirical studies in different healthcare contexts. Phase Two uses participatory approach to develop and test a collaborative learning framework followed by an evaluation to appraise its utility using observation and focus groups as data collection procedures.Ethics and disseminationPhase One of the study is approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (reference no. 864334). The findings will be disseminated through scientific articles, presentations at international conferences and through social media and popular press. This includes establishing a set of learning tools for adaptive use, that is made publicly available in Open Access repositories.