Carl Macrae’s research while affiliated with University of Stavanger and other places

Purpose The role of healthcare leaders is becoming increasingly complex, and carries great responsibility for patients, employees, and the quality of service delivery. This study explored the barriers and enablers that department leaders in nursing homes encounter when managing the dual responsibilities in Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) and Quality and Patient Safety (QPS). Methodology Case study design with data collected through semi structured interviews with 16 department leaders in five Norwegian municipalities. We analyzed the data using qualitative content analysis. Results Data analysis resulted in four themes explaining what department leaders in nursing homes experience as barriers and enablers when handling the dual responsibility of HSE and QPS: Temporal capacity: The importance of having enough time to create a health-promoting work environment that ensures patient safety. Relational capacity: Relationships have an impact on work process and outcomes. Professional competence: Competence affects patient safety and leadership strategies. Organizational structure: Organizational frameworks influence how the dual responsibilities are handled. Conclusion Evidence from this study showed that external contextual factors (eg, legislations and finances) and internal factors (eg, relationships and expectations) are experienced as barriers and enablers when department leaders are enacting the dual responsibility of HSE and QPS. Of these, relationships were found to be the most significant contributor.

Objective Within healthcare, the role of leader is becoming more complex, and healthcare leaders carry an increasing responsibility for the performance of employees, the experience and safety of patients and the quality of care provision. This study aimed to explore how leaders of nursing homes manage the dual responsibility of both Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) and Quality and Patient Safety (QPS), focusing particularly on the approaches leaders take and the dilemmas they face. In addition, we wanted to examine how leaders experience and manage the challenges of HSE and QPS in a holistic way. Design/setting The study was designed as a case study. Data were collected through semi structured individual interviews with leaders of nursing homes in five Norwegian municipalities. Participants 13 leaders of nursing homes in urban and rural municipalities participated in this study. Results Data analysis resulted in four themes explaining how leaders of nursing homes manage the dual responsibility of HSE and QPS, and the approaches they take and the dilemmas they face: 1. Establishing good systems and building a culture for a work environment that promotes health and patient safety. 2. Establish channels for internal and external collaboration and communication. 3. Establish room for maneuver to exercise leadership. 4. Recognizing and having the mandate to handle possible tensions in the dual responsibility of HSE and QPS. Conclusions The study showed that leaders of nursing homes who are responsible for ensuring quality and safety for both patients and staff, experience tensions in handling this dual responsibility. They acknowledged the importance of having time to be present as a leader, to have robust systems to maintain HSE and QPS, and that conflicting aspects of legislation are an everyday challenge.

Background Healthcare leaders play an important and complex role in managing and handling the dual responsibility of both Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) for workers and quality and patient safety (QPS). There is a need for better understanding of how healthcare leaders and decision makers organize and create support structures to handle these combined responsibilities in practice. The aim of this study was to explore how healthcare leaders and elected politicians organize, control, and follow up the work of HSE and QPS in a Norwegian nursing home context. Moreover, we explore how they interpret, negotiate, and manage the dual responsibility and possible tensions between employee health and safety, and patient safety and quality of service delivery. Methods The study was conducted in 2022 as a case study exploring the experience of healthcare leaders and elected politicians in five municipalities responsible for providing nursing homes services in Norway. Elected politicians (18) and healthcare leaders (11) participated in focus group interviews (5) and individual interviews (11). Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Results The analysis identified five main themes explaining how the healthcare leaders and elected politicians organize, control, and follow up the work of HSE and QPS: 1. Establish frameworks and room for maneuver in the work with HSE and QPS. 2. Create good routines and channels for communication and collaboration. 3. Build a culture for a health-promoting work environment and patient safety. 4. Create systems to handle the possible tensions in the dual responsibility between caring for employees and quality and safety in service delivery. 5. Define clear boundaries in responsibility between politics and administration. Conclusions The study showed that healthcare leaders and elected politicians who are responsible for ensuring sound systems for quality and safety for both patients and staff, do experience tensions in handling this dual responsibility. They acknowledge the need to create systems and awareness for the responsibility and argue that there is a need to better separate the roles and boundaries between elected politicians and the healthcare administration in the execution of HSE and QPS.

The COVID‐19 pandemic has challenged and changed organisations. While the pandemic has brought opportunities for business in some sectors, such as information and communication, and for people who enjoy the flexibility they gain from home‐based or hybrid work arrangements, the realisation of benefits for individuals and organisations is uncertain over longer time periods and distributed unevenly across the workforce. Thus, the pandemic situation has been a trigger, albeit an unwelcome one, for revising our theorising about organisational risk. We build on the articles within our special section and develop a perspective on how to continue the development of new theoretical insights. First, we examine how existing theories can be extended to encompass organisational risk. We focus on theories of organisational culture to do so. Second, we discuss ways that existing theories can be repurposed to address important challenges. We illustrate our points using paradoxical leadership theory and theories of creativity. Third, we reflect on ways to develop new theorising by exploring multilevel modelling and the microfoundations of organisational risk. Fourth, we reflect on methods. In doing so, we pave the way for future studies that will enrich our understanding of organisational risk and contribute to preparations for future crises.

Background: Healthcare leaders play an important and complex role in managing and handling the dual responsibility of both Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) for workers and quality and safety for patients (QPS). There is a need for investigation into how healthcare leaders and decision makers organize and create support structures to handle these combined responsibilities in practice. The aim of this study was to explore how healthcare leaders and elected politicians organize, control, and follow up the work of HSE and QPS in a Norwegian nursing home context. Moreover, we explore how they interpret, negotiate, and manage the dual responsibility and possible tensions between employee health and safety, and patient safety and quality of service delivery. Methods: The study was conducted in 2022 as a case study exploring the experience of healthcare leaders and elected politicians in five municipalities responsible for providing nursing homes services in Norway. Elected politicians (18) and healthcare leaders (11) participated in focus group interviews (5) and individual interviews (11). Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: The analysis identified five main themes explaining how the healthcare leaders and elected politicians organize, control, and follow up the work of HSE and QPS: 1. Establish frameworks and room for maneuver in the work with HSE and QPS. 2. Create good routines and channels for communication and collaboration. 3. Build a culture for a health-promoting work environment and patient safety. 4. Create systems to handle the possible tensions in the dual responsibility between caring for employees and quality and safety in service delivery. 5. Define clear boundaries in responsibility between politics and administration. Conclusions: The study showed that healthcare leaders and elected politicians who are responsible for ensuring sound systems for quality and safety for both patients and staff, do experience tensions in handling this dual responsibility. They acknowledge the need to create systems and awareness for the responsibility and argue that there is a need to better separate the roles and boundaries between elected politicians and the healthcare administration in the execution of HSE and QPS.

This paper focuses on concepts and labels used in investigation of adverse events in healthcare. The aim is to prompt critical reflection of how different stakeholders frame investigative activity in healthcare and to discuss the implications of the labels we use. We particularly draw attention to issues of investigative content, legal aspects, as well as possible barriers and facilitators to willingly participate, share knowledge, and achieve systemic learning. Our message about investigation concepts and labels is that they matter and influence the quality of investigation, and how these activities may contribute to system learning and change. This message is important for the research community, policy makers, healthcare practitioners, patients, and user representatives.

Adaptive capacity has been described as instrumental for the development of resilience in healthcare. Yet, our theoretical understanding of adaptive capacity remains relatively underdeveloped. This research therefore aims at developing a new understanding of the nature of adaptive capacity by exploring the following research questions: 1. What constitutes adaptive capacity across different healthcare contexts? and 2. What type of enabling factors support adaptive capacity across different healthcare contexts? The study used a novel combination of qualitative methods featuring a metasynthesis of narratives based on empirical research to contribute understanding of adaptive capacity across different healthcare contexts. The findings show that adaptive capacity was found to include four forms: reframing, aligning, coping, and innovating. A framework illustrating the relatedness between the identified forms, in terms of resources, change and enablers, is provided. Based on these findings, a new definition of adaptive capacity for resilience in healthcare is proposed.