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.

Patient involvement in health care decision making is part of a wider trend towards a more bottom-up approach to service planning and provision, and patient experience is increasingly conceptualized as a core dimension of health care quality. The aim of this multi-level study is two-fold: 1) to describe and analyze how governmental organizations expect acute hospitals to incorporate patient involvement and patient experiences into their quality improvement (QI) efforts and 2) to analyze how patient involvement and patient experiences are used by hospitals to try to improve the quality of care they provide. This multi-level case study combines analysis of national policy documents and regulations at the macro level with semi-structured interviews and non-participant observation of key meetings and shadowing of staff at the meso and micro levels in two purposively sampled Norwegian hospitals. Fieldwork at the meso and micro levels was undertaken over a 12-month period (2011–2012). Governmental documents and regulations at the macro level demonstrated wide-ranging expectations for the integration of patient involvement and patient experiences in QI work in hospitals. The expectations span from systematic collection of patients’ and family members’ experiences for the purpose of improving service quality through establishing patient-oriented arenas for ongoing collaboration with staff to the support of individual involvement in decision making. However, the extent of involvement of patients and application of patient experiences in QI work was limited at both hospitals. Even though patient involvement was gaining prominence at the meso level − and to a lesser extent at the micro level − relevant tools for measuring and using patient experiences in QI work were lacking, and available measures of patient experience were not being used meaningfully or systematically. The relative lack of expertise in Norwegian hospitals of adapting and implementing tools and methods for improving patient involvement and patient experiences at the meso and micro levels mark a need for health care policymakers and hospital leaders to learn from experiences of other industries and countries that have successfully integrated user experiences into QI work. Hospital managers need to design and implement wider strategies to help their staff members recognize and value the contribution that patient involvement and patient experiences can make to the improvement of healthcare quality.

Aim: To assess the relationship between transformational leadership, job demands, job resources, patient safety culture and work engagement in home care services.Design: Cross‐sectional survey.Methods: Healthcare professionals in Norwegian home care services participated in the study (N = 139). Multiple regression analyses with patient safety culture and work engagement as outcomes and transformational leadership, job demands, job resources as predictors were conducted.Results: The transformational leadership model explained 35.7% of the variance in patient safety culture. Adding job demands and resources and work engagement to the model increased the explained variance to 53.5%. The job resource “skill utilization” was the strongest predictor of work engagement. The full model with all predictor variables explained 28.2% of work engagement.Conclusion: Transformational leadership has a significant impact on patient safety culture and work engagement in home care services. Employees' perceptions of job demands, available resources and engagement also affect patient safety culture.

Patient safety risk in the homecare context and patient safety risk related to telecare are both emerging research areas. Patient safety issues associated with the use of telecare in homecare services are therefore not clearly understood. It is unclear what the patient safety risks are, how patient safety issues have been investigated, and what research is still needed to provide a comprehensive picture of risks, challenges and potential harm to patients due to the implementation and use of telecare services in the home. Furthermore, it is unclear how training for telecare users has addressed patient safety issues. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify patient safety risks associated with telecare use in homecare services and to investigate whether and how these patient safety risks have been addressed in telecare training. Six electronic databases were searched in addition to hand searches of key items, reference tracking and citation tracking. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were set. All included items were assessed according to set quality criteria and subjected to a narrative synthesis to organise and synthesize the findings. A human factors systems framework of patient safety was used to frame and analyse the results. 22 items were included in the review. 11 types of patient safety risks associated with telecare use in homecare services emerged. These are in the main related to the nature of homecare tasks and practices, and person-centred characteristics and capabilities, and to a lesser extent, problems with the technology and devices, organisational issues, and environmental factors. Training initiatives related to safe telecare use are not described in the literature. There is a need to better identify and describe patient safety risks related to telecare services to improve understandings of how to avoid and minimize potential harm to patients. This process can be aided by reframing known telecare implementation challenges and user experiences of telecare with the help of a human factors systems approach to patient safety.

Background: Resilient and responsive healthcare systems is on the agenda as ever before. COVID-19, specialization of services, resource demands, and technology development are all examples of aspects leading to adaptations among stakeholders at different system levels whilst also attempting to maintain high service quality and safety. This commentary sets the scene for a journal collection on Resilient and responsive health systems in a changing world. The commentary aims to outline main challenges and opportunities in resilient healthcare theory and practice globally, as a backdrop for contributions to the collection. Main text: Some of the main challenges in this field relate to a myriad of definitions and approaches to resilience in healthcare, and a lack of studies having multilevel perspectives. Also, the role of patients, families, and the public in resilient and responsive healthcare systems is under researched. By flipping the coin, this illustrates opportunities for research and practice and raise key issues that future resilience research should pay attention to. The potential of combining theoretical lenses from different resilience traditions, involvement of multiple stakeholders in co-creating research and practice improvement, and modelling and visualizing resilient performance are all opportunities to learn more about how healthcare succeeds under stress and normal operations. Conclusion: A wide understanding of resilience and responsiveness is needed to support planning and preparation for future disasters and for handling the routine small-scale adaptation. This collection welcomes systematic reviews, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research on the topic of resilience and responsiveness in all areas of the health system.