The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Defining the boundaries and operational concepts of resilience in the resilience in healthcare research program
Open accessAbstract
Background: Understanding the resilience of healthcare is critically important. A resilient healthcare system might be expected to consistently deliver high quality care, withstand disruptive events and continually adapt, learn and improve. However, there are many different theories, models and definitions of resilience and most are contested and debated in the literature. Clear and unambiguous conceptual definitions are important for both theoretical and practical considerations of any phenomenon, and resilience is no exception. A large international research programme on Resilience in Healthcare (RiH) is seeking to address these issues in a 5-year study across Norway, England, the Netherlands, Australia, Japan, and Switzerland (2018–2023). The aims of this debate paper are: 1) to identify and select core operational concepts of resilience from the literature in order to consider their contributions, implications, and boundaries for researching resilience in healthcare; and 2) to propose a working definition of healthcare resilience that underpins the international RiH research programme. Main text: To fulfil these aims, first an overview of three core perspectives or metaphors that underpin theories of resilience are introduced from ecology, engineering and psychology. Second, we present a brief overview of key definitions and approaches to resilience applicable in healthcare. We position our research program with collaborative learning and user involvement as vital prerequisite pillars in our conceptualisation and operationalisation of resilience for maintaining quality of healthcare services. Third, our analysis addresses four core questions that studies of resilience in healthcare need to consider when defining and operationalising resilience. These are: resilience ‘for what’, ‘to what’, ‘of what’, and ‘through what’? Finally, we present our operational definition of resilience. Conclusion: The RiH research program is exploring resilience as a multi-level phenomenon and considers adaptive capacity to change as a foundation for high quality care. We, therefore, define healthcare resilience as: the capacity to adapt to challenges and changes at different system levels, to maintain high quality care. This working definition of resilience is intended to be comprehensible and applicable regardless of the level of analysis or type of system component under investigation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Resilient health care: turning patient safety on its head
Braithwaite, J., Wears, R. L., & Hollnagel, E. (2015) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzv063 · Cited by 599
Safety-II in Practice: Developing the Resilience Potentials
Hollnagel, E. (2017) · doi:10.4324/9781315201023 · Cited by 263
Cited by
Macrae, C. (2022) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.13850 · Cited by 76
Self-citationReid, B. O., Næss-Pleym, L. E., Bakkelund, K. E., Dale, J., Uleberg, O., & Nordstrand, A. E. (2022) · Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1186/s13049-021-00991-2 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- on behalf of the RiH-team, Wiig, S., Aase, K., Billett, S., Canfield, C., Røise, O., Njå, O., Guise, V., Haraldseid-Driftland, C., Ree, E., Anderson, J. E., & Macrae, C.
- Venue
- BMC Health Services Research
- Published
- 2020-04-19
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 330-330
- ISSN
- 1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3016335358
- Cited by
- 306
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 27.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.