Evelyn Cornelissen

Moral Distress Among Health System Managers: Exploratory Research in Two British Columbia Health Authorities

Moral distress is a concept used to date in clinical literature to describe the experience of staff in circumstances in which they are prevented from delivering the kind of bedside care they believe is expected of them, professionally and ethically. Our research objective was to determine if this concept has relevance in terms of key health care managerial functions, such as priority setting and resource allocation. We conducted interviews and focus groups with mid- and senior-level managers in two British Columbia (Canada) health authorities. Transcripts were analyzed qualitatively using constant comparison to identify key themes related to moral distress. Both mid- and senior-level managers appear to experience moral distress, with both similarities and differences in how their experiences manifest. Several examples of this concept were identified including the obligation to communicate or ‘sell’ organizational decisions or policies with which a manager personally may disagree and situations where scarce resources compel managers to place staff in situations where they meet with predictable and potentially avoidable risks. Given that moral distress appears to be a relevant issue for at least some health care managers, further research is warranted into its exact nature, prevalence, and possible organizational and personal responses.

Sustaining organizational culture change in health systems

PURPOSE The questions addressed by this review are: first, what are the guiding principles underlying efforts to stimulate sustained cultural change; second, what are the mechanisms by which these principles operate; and, finally, what are the contextual factors that influence the likelihood of these principles being effective? The paper aims to discuss these issues. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH The authors conducted a literature review informed by rapid realist review methodology that examined how interventions interact with contexts and mechanisms to influence the sustainability of cultural change. Reference and expert panelists assisted in refining the research questions, systematically searching published and grey literature, and helping to identify interactions between interventions, mechanisms and contexts. FINDINGS Six guiding principles were identified: align vision and action; make incremental changes within a comprehensive transformation strategy; foster distributed leadership; promote staff engagement; create collaborative relationships; and continuously assess and learn from change. These principles interact with contextual elements such as local power distributions, pre-existing values and beliefs and readiness to engage. Mechanisms influencing how these principles sustain cultural change include activation of a shared sense of urgency and fostering flexible levels of engagement. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS The principles identified in this review, along with the contexts and mechanisms that influence their effectiveness, are useful domains for policy and practice leaders to explore when grappling with cultural change. These principles are sufficiently broad to allow local flexibilities in adoption and application. ORIGINALITY/VALUE This is the first study to adopt a realist approach for understanding how changes in organizational culture may be sustained. Through doing so, this review highlights the broad principles by which organizational action may be organized within enabling contextual settings.

Changing priority setting practice: The role of implementation in practice change

BACKGROUND Programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is a priority setting approach that assists decision makers in choosing among resource demands. This paper describes and evaluates the process of implementing PBMA in a Canadian regional health authority, and draws out key lessons learned from this experience. METHODS Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured participant interviews (twelve post year-1; nine post year-2), meeting attendance, and document review. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a constant comparison technique. Other data were analyzed to evaluate PBMA implementation. RESULTS Desire for more clarity and for PBMA adaptations emerged as overarching themes. Participants desired greater clarity of their roles and how PBMA should be used to achieve PBMAs potential benefits. They argued that each PBMA stage should be useful independent of the others so that implementation could be adapted. To help improve clarity and ensure that resources were available to support PBMA, participants requested an organizational readiness and capacity assessment. CONCLUSION We suggest tactics by which PBMA may be more closely aligned with real-world priority setting practice. Our results also contribute to the literature on PBMA use in various healthcare settings. Highlighting implementation issues and potential responses to these should be of interest to decision makers implementing PBMA and other evidence-informed practices.

Using evaluation theory in priority setting and resource allocation

PURPOSE Public sector interest in methods for priority setting and program or policy evaluation has grown considerably over the last several decades, given increased expectations for accountable and efficient use of resources and emphasis on evidence-based decision making as a component of good management practice. While there has been some occasional effort to conduct evaluation of priority setting projects, the literatures around priority setting and evaluation have largely evolved separately. In this paper, the aim is to bring them together. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH The contention is that evaluation theory is a means by which evaluators reflect upon what it is they are doing when they do evaluation work. Theories help to organize thinking, sort out relevant from irrelevant information, provide transparent grounds for particular implementation choices, and can help resolve problematic issues which may arise in the conduct of an evaluation project. FINDINGS A detailed review of three major branches of evaluation theory--methods, utilization, and valuing--identifies how such theories can guide the development of efforts to evaluate priority setting and resource allocation initiatives. Evaluation theories differ in terms of their guiding question, anticipated setting or context, evaluation foci, perspective from which benefits are calculated, and typical methods endorsed. ORIGINALITY/VALUE Choosing a particular theoretical approach will structure the way in which any priority setting process is evaluated. The paper suggests that explicitly considering evaluation theory makes key aspects of the evaluation process more visible to all stakeholders, and can assist in the design of effective evaluation of priority setting processes; this should iteratively serve to improve the understanding of priority setting practices themselves.

Creating a Knowledge Translation Trainee Collaborative: From Conceptualization to Lessons Learned in the First Year

Trainees (e.g., graduate students, residents, fellows) are increasingly identifying knowledge translation as their research discipline. In Canada, a group of trainees have created a trainee-initiated and trainee-led national collaborative to provide a vehicle for trainees to examine the diversity of knowledge translation research and practice, and to link trainees from diverse geographical areas and disciplines. The aim of this paper is to describe our experience and lessons learned in creating the Knowledge Translation Trainee Collaborative. In this meeting report, we outline the process, challenges, and opportunities in planning and experiencing the collaboratives inaugural meeting as participant organizers, and present outcomes and learnings to date.

Knowledge brokering for healthy aging: a scoping review of potential approaches

BackgroundDeveloping a healthcare delivery system that is more responsive to the future challenges of an aging population is a priority in Canada. The World Health Organization acknowledges the need for knowledge translation frameworks in aging and health. Knowledge brokering (KB) is a specific knowledge translation approach that includes making connections between people to facilitate the use of evidence. Knowledge gaps exist about KB roles, approaches, and guiding frameworks. The objective of the scoping review is to identify and describe KB approaches and the underlying conceptual frameworks (models, theories) used to guide the approaches that could support healthy aging.MethodsLiterature searches were done in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, EBM reviews (Cochrane Database of systematic reviews), CINAHL, and SCOPUS, as well as Google and Google Scholar using terms related to knowledge brokering. Titles, abstracts, and full reports were reviewed independently by two reviewers who came to consensus on all screening criteria. Documents were included if they described a KB approach and details about the underlying conceptual basis. Data about KB approach, target stakeholders, KB outcomes, and context were extracted independently by two reviewers.ResultsSearches identified 248 unique references. Screening for inclusion revealed 19 documents that described 15 accounts of knowledge brokering and details about conceptual guidance and could be applied in healthy aging contexts. Eight KB elements were detected in the approaches though not all approaches incorporated all elements. The underlying conceptual guidance for KB approaches varied. Specific KB frameworks were referenced or developed for nine KB approaches while the remaining six cited more general KT frameworks (or multiple frameworks) as guidance.ConclusionsThe KB approaches that we found varied greatly depending on the context and stakeholders involved. Three of the approaches were explicitly employed in the context of health aging. Common elements of KB approaches that could be conducted in healthy aging contexts focussed on acquiring, adapting, and disseminating knowledge and networking (linkage). The descriptions of the guiding conceptual frameworks (theories, models) focussed on linkage and exchange but varied across approaches. Future research should gather KB practitioner and stakeholder perspectives on effective practices to develop KB approaches for healthy aging.

Fit for purpose? Introducing a rational priority setting approach into a community care setting.

Purpose - Program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is a priority setting approach that assists decision makers with allocating resources. Previous PBMA work establishes its efficacy and indicates that contextual factors complicate priority setting, which can hamper PBMA effectiveness. The purpose of this paper is to gain qualitative insight into PBMA effectiveness. Design/methodology/approach - A Canadian case study of PBMA implementation. Data consist of decision-maker interviews pre (n=20), post year-1 (n=12) and post year-2 (n=9) of PBMA to examine perceptions of baseline priority setting practice vis-à-vis desired practice, and perceptions of PBMA usability and acceptability. Findings - Fit emerged as a key theme in determining PBMA effectiveness. Fit herein refers to being of suitable quality and form to meet the intended purposes and needs of the end-users, and includes desirability, acceptability, and usability dimensions. Results confirm decision-maker desire for rational approaches like PBMA. However, most participants indicated that the timing of the exercise and the form in which PBMA was applied were not well-suited for this case study. Participant acceptance of and buy-in to PBMA changed during the study: a leadership change, limited organizational commitment, and concerns with organizational capacity were key barriers to PBMA adoption and thereby effectiveness. Practical implications - These findings suggest that a potential way-forward includes adding a contextual readiness/capacity assessment stage to PBMA, recognizing organizational complexity, and considering incremental adoption of PBMAs approach. Originality/value - These insights help us to better understand and work with priority setting conditions to advance evidence-informed decision making.

Reflecting on Backward Design for Knowledge Translation; Comment on 'A Call for a Backward Design to Knowledge Translation'

In a recent Editorial for this journal, El-Jardali and Fadlallah proposed a new framework for Knowledge Translation (KT) in healthcare. Many such frameworks already exist; thus, new entrants to the field must be scrutinized in regard to their unique contributions to advancing understanding and practice. The El-Jardali and Fadlallah framework focuses on policy-level discussions, a relatively under-studied issue to date. Their framework usefully incorporates both priority setting questions at the front-end (which KT efforts get undertaken and which do not) as well as evaluation questions at the back-end (how do we show that more evidence-informed decisions are actually better ones?). Their framework also emphasizes capacity building among both decision-makers and researchers. This is an area worthy of additional attention, particularly because it is likely to be far more challenging than El-Jardali and Fadlallah allow.

Trainees’ self-reported challenges in knowledge translation practice and research

Background Knowledge translation (KT) refers to the process of moving knowledge into healthcare practice and policy. The practice of KT is about helping decision-makers become aware of knowledge and facilitating their use of it in their day-to-day work. The science of KT is about studying the determinants of knowledge use and investigating strategies to support the adoption, implementation, and sustained use of knowledge in healthcare practice and policy. An increasing number of trainees are developing careers in KT practice and/or KT research. Given the infancy of this field, there may be unique challenges that trainees face as they develop their careers in KT. This paper is one of two from a study about KT trainees’ perspectives on KT research and practice. The purpose of this paper was to identify challenges that KT trainees face in their KT practice or research.

Identifying emerging priorities in Knowledge Translation from the perspective of trainees

Background As the Knowledge Translation (KT) field advances, there is an increasing need to identify priorities to help shape future directions for research. An important source of KT priorities is ‘experts’ who are well-established researchers and practitioners. Another potential source for identifying priorities is trainees. Given that many KT trainees are developing their programs of research, understanding their main concerns and priorities for KT research and practice is critical to supporting the development and advancement of KT as a field. The purpose of this study was to identify priorities for research and practice in the KT field from the perspectives of KT researcher and practitioner trainees.