Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 Sep 30;23(1):1048. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-10035-3.
Central to Safety-II is promoting resilience of healthcare practices. In the "Room for Resilience" research project we focus on the role of horizontal and vertical accountability in healthcare teams and aim to discover how the relation between the two impacts team reflections and discussions. In this article, we report on an explorative study at the start of the project which aimed to assess the structures and dynamics of horizontal and vertical accountability.
A qualitative study in six teams in three hospitals in the Netherlands. For the project, each team selected a specific clinical process to work on (e.g. pain assessment). We interviewed healthcare professionals, managers, and quality advisors about these processes, how they are discussed in practice and how teams need to account for them. Additionally, we observed the processes and how teams discuss them in practice. In total, we conducted 35 interviews and 67.5 h of observation. Transcripts and field notes were analyzed using thematic analysis.
Professionals at times varied in what they considered the right approach in the clinical process, with differing views on the importance of certain actions. When processes were discussed, this mostly was done during clinical work, and it often concerned reflections about the care for a specific patient instead of reflecting on the team's general approach of the clinical process. Organized reflections on the processes were sparse. How processes were conducted in practice deviated from guidelines, mainly due to staff shortages, a perceived lack of value of a guideline, equipment issues, and collaboration issues. For most processes, accountability to hierarchical layers consisted of quality indicator scores. Professionals were tasked with registering indicator data but did not find this meaningful for their work.
The observed different perspectives within teams on what good quality care is show the importance of having team reflections about these processes. How vertical accountability was organized at times impacted the conditions for teams to discuss resilient performance. Following these findings, we recommend that reflection on resilient practice and the role of accountability processes is organized on all levels in (and outside) the organization.
安全 II 的核心是促进医疗实践的恢复力。在“弹性空间”研究项目中,我们专注于医疗团队中水平和垂直问责制的作用,并旨在发现两者之间的关系如何影响团队的反思和讨论。在本文中,我们报告了项目开始时的一项探索性研究,旨在评估水平和垂直问责制的结构和动态。
在荷兰的三家医院的六支团队中进行了一项定性研究。为了进行该项目,每个团队选择了一个特定的临床过程进行研究(例如疼痛评估)。我们采访了医疗保健专业人员、管理人员和质量顾问,了解这些过程、它们在实践中是如何讨论的以及团队需要如何对其负责。此外,我们还观察了这些过程以及团队在实践中如何讨论这些过程。总共进行了 35 次访谈和 67.5 小时的观察。使用主题分析对转录本和现场记录进行了分析。
专业人员有时对临床过程中正确的方法有不同的看法,对某些操作的重要性有不同的看法。当讨论流程时,这主要是在临床工作中进行的,而且通常涉及对特定患者护理的反思,而不是对团队对临床流程的一般方法的反思。对流程的有组织的反思很少。实践中流程的实施与指南不符,主要是由于人员短缺、对指南缺乏价值的认识、设备问题和协作问题。对于大多数流程,对层次结构层的问责制包括质量指标得分。专业人员负责记录指标数据,但发现这对他们的工作没有意义。
团队内部对良好护理质量的不同看法表明,对这些流程进行团队反思非常重要。垂直问责制的组织方式有时会影响团队讨论有弹性的绩效的条件。根据这些发现,我们建议在(组织内外)所有层面上组织对有弹性的实践和问责制流程的作用的反思。