scholarly journals Viewpoint — A Pandemic’s Influence on Future Priorities

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne McGurn

The global COVID-19 pandemic has changed our perspective on what is possible when it comes to health system transformation. Governments, decision-makers, and patients need the best available evidence to help identify health system priorities and inform discussions surrounding value, equity, access, affordability, investment, disinvestment, and risk. Against this backdrop, CADTH has embarked on the process of developing a new strategic plan to guide our priorities and help us meet the evolving needs of our stakeholders.

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rick Iedema ◽  
Raj Verma ◽  
Sonia Wutzke ◽  
Nigel Lyons ◽  
Brian McCaughan

Purpose To further our insight into the role of networks in health system reform, the purpose of this paper is to investigate how one agency, the NSW Agency for Clinical Innovation (ACI), and the multiple networks and enabling resources that it encompasses, govern, manage and extend the potential of networks for healthcare practice improvement. Design/methodology/approach This is a case study investigation which took place over ten months through the first author’s participation in network activities and discussions with the agency’s staff about their main objectives, challenges and achievements, and with selected services around the state of New South Wales to understand the agency’s implementation and large system transformation activities. Findings The paper demonstrates that ACI accommodates multiple networks whose oversight structures, self-organisation and systems change approaches combined in dynamic ways, effectively yield a diversity of network governances. Further, ACI bears out a paradox of “centralised decentralisation”, co-locating agents of innovation with networks of implementation and evaluation expertise. This arrangement strengthens and legitimates the role of the strategic hybrid – the healthcare professional in pursuit of change and improvement, and enhances their influence and impact on the wider system. Research limitations/implications While focussing the case study on one agency only, this study is unique as it highlights inter-network connections. Contributing to the literature on network governance, this paper identifies ACI as a “network of networks” through which resources, expectations and stakeholder dynamics are dynamically and flexibly mediated and enhanced. Practical implications The co-location of and dynamic interaction among clinical networks may create synergies among networks, nurture “strategic hybrids”, and enhance the impact of network activities on health system reform. Social implications Network governance requires more from network members than participation in a single network, as it involves health service professionals and consumers in a multi-network dynamic. This dynamic requires deliberations and collaborations to be flexible, and it increasingly positions members as “strategic hybrids” – people who have moved on from singular taken-as-given stances and identities, towards hybrid positionings and flexible perspectives. Originality/value This paper is novel in that it identifies a critical feature of health service reform and large system transformation: network governance is empowered through the dynamic co-location of and collaboration among healthcare networks, particularly when complemented with “enabler” teams of people specialising in programme implementation and evaluation.


Author(s):  
Heather L. Rogers ◽  
Pedro Pita Barros ◽  
Jan De Maeseneer ◽  
Lasse Lehtonen ◽  
Christos Lionis ◽  
...  

The resilience of health systems has received considerable attention as of late, yet little is known about what a resilience test might look like. We develop a resilience test concept and methodology. We describe key components of a toolkit and a 5-phased approach to implementation of resilience testing that can be adapted to individual health systems. We develop a methodology for a test that is balanced in terms of standardization and system-specific characteristics/needs. We specify how to work with diverse stakeholders from the health ecosystem via participatory processes to assess and identify recommendations for health system strengthening. The proposed resilience test toolkit consists of “what if” adverse scenarios, a menu of health system performance elements and indicators based on an input-output-outcomes framework, a discussion guide for each adverse scenario, and a traffic light scorecard template. The five phases of implementation include Phase 0, a preparatory phase to adapt the toolkit materials; Phase 1: facilitated discussion groups with stakeholders regarding the adverse scenarios; Phase 2: supplemental data collection of relevant quantitative indicators; Phase 3: summarization of results; Phase 4: action planning and health system transformation. The toolkit and 5-phased approach can support countries to test resilience of health systems, and provides a concrete roadmap to its implementation.


2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 212
Author(s):  
Hakimeh Mostafavi ◽  
Arash Rashidian ◽  
Mohammad Arab ◽  
Mohammad R. V. Mahdavi ◽  
Kioomars Ashtarian

<p><strong>Background:</strong> Health systems, as part of the social system, consider public values. This study was conducted to examine the role of social values in the health priority setting in the Iranian health system.</p><p><strong>Methods:</strong> In this qualitative case study, three main data sources were used: literature, national documents, and key informants who were purposefully selected from health care organizations and other related institutions. Data was analyzed and interpreted using the Clark-Weale Framework.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> According to our results, the public indirectly participates in decision-making. The public representatives participate in the meetings of the health priority setting as parliament members, representatives of some unions, members of the city council, and donors. The transparency of the decisions and the accountability of the decision makers are low. Decision makers only respond to complaints of the Audit Court and the Inspection Organization. Individual choice, although respected in hospitals and clinics, is limited in health care networks because of the referral system. Clinical effectiveness is considered in insurance companies and some hospitals. There are no technical abilities to determine the cost-effectiveness of health technologies; however, some international experiences are employed. Equity and solidarity are considered in different levels of the health system.</p><p><strong>Conclusion:</strong> Social values are considered in the health priority decisions in limited ways. It seems that the lack of an appropriate value-based framework for priority setting and also the lack of public participation are the major defects of the health system. It is recommended that health policymakers invite different groups of people and stakeholders for active involvement in health priority decisions. </p>


2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Allin ◽  
Sara Guilcher ◽  
Dana Riley ◽  
Yu Janice Zhang

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 337-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moriah E Ellen ◽  
John N Lavis ◽  
Michael G Wilson ◽  
Jeremy Grimshaw ◽  
R Brian Haynes ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 592-597 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Hyatt Thorpe ◽  
Elizabeth A. Gray ◽  
Lara Cartwright-Smith

Truly transforming the healthcare delivery and payment system turns on the ability to engage in the interoperable electronic exchange of patient health information across and beyond the care continuum. Achieving transformation requires a legal framework that supports information sharing with appropriate privacy and security protections and a trusted governance structure.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document