External inspections constitute a key element of healthcare regulation. Improved quality of care is one of the important goals of inspections but the mechanisms of how inspections might contribute to quality improvement are poorly understood. Drawing on interviews with healthcare professionals and managers and health record data from inspected organizations, we used a realist evaluation approach to explore how twelve inspections of healthcare providers in x= Norway influenced quality improvement. We found that for inspections to contribute to quality improvement, there must be contextual structures present supporting accountability and engaging staff in improvement work. When such structures are present, inspections can contribute to improvement by creating awareness of gaps between desired and current practices, which leads to readiness for change and stimulates intra-organizational reasoning around quality improvement. We discuss our findings using the theory of de- and recoupling, noting how regulators can identify decoupling between intended goals, management systems, practices, and patient outcomes. We further argue that regulators can contribute to a recoupling between these levels by having the capacity to track the providers' clinical performance over time. This will hold the organization accountable for implementing improvement measures and evaluate the effects of the measures on quality of care.

Background: There is a gap in the literature regarding what takes place between the announcement of a regulatory intervention, such as an external inspection of a health care organisation, and the inspecting body’s site visit. This study aimed to explore inspecting bodies’ expectations of how inspected organisations should prepare before an external inspection and to elucidate how inspected health care organisations prepare before site visits. Methods: This qualitative study was based on data from 17 group interviews with a total of 75 participants representing inspection teams, organisation leaders and clinicians in inspected health care organisations. The data were analysed using a qualitative content analysis method. Results: We identified two approaches to how the inspection teams expected that the inspected organisations should prepare before site visits. In the first approach the inspection teams did not expect any improvement activities to be initiated during this period and focused on identifying inadequacies that the inspected organisations should subsequently improve. In the second approach the inspection teams expected organisations to review their own practices and begin improvement activities if necessary. The inspected organisations responded in different ways to an upcoming site visit, and the organisations’ leaders were important in determining which activities would be initiated. Organisations in which leaders involved clinicians in assessing care delivery tended to initiate action to improve and expected inspection teams to assess their ongoing improvement work and provide guidance on further improvements. Leaders who did not involve clinicians in assessing the quality of care tended to perceive the current quality of care as adequate on the basis of reviewing written guidelines. They did not initiate action to improve care delivery apart from updating written guidelines describing how care should be delivered, and they expected the inspection team to confirm that their current practices were in line with the guidelines and external standards. Conclusions: To promote anticipatory effects in inspected organisations, inspecting bodies should stress the importance of assessing clinical practice and involving frontline clinical staff and leaders in the assessment and in improvement work before the site visit.

Background: Research proactively and deliberately aims to bring about specific changes to how societies function and individual lives fare. However, in the ever-expanding field of ethical regulations and guidance for researchers, one ethical consideration seems to have passed under the radar: How should researchers act when pursuing actual, societal changes based on their academic work? Main text: When researchers engage in the process of bringing about societal impact to tackle local or global challenges important concerns arise: cultural, social and political values and institutions can be put at risk, transformed or even hampered if researchers lack awareness of how their ‘acting to impact’ influences the social world. With today’s strong focus on research impacts, addressing such ethical challenges has become urgent within in all fields of research involved in finding solutions to the challenges societies are facing. Due to the overall goal of doing something good that is often inherent in ethical approaches, boundaries to researchers’ impact of something good is neither obvious, nor easy to detect. We suggest that it is time for the field of bioethics to explore normative boundaries for researchers’ pursuit of impact and to consider, in detail, the ethical obligations that ought to shape this process, and we provide a four-step framework of fair conditions for such an approach. Our suggested approach within this field can be useful for other fields of research as well. Conclusion: With this paper, we draw attention to how the transition from pursuing impact within the Academy to trying to initiate and achieve impact beyond the Academy ought to be configured, and the ethical challenges inherent in this transition. We suggest a stepwise strategy to identify, discuss and constitute consensus-based boundaries to this academic activity. This strategy calls for efforts from a multi-disciplinary team of researchers, advisors from the humanities and social sciences, as well as discussants from funding institutions, ethical committees, politics and the society in general. Such efforts should be able to offer new and useful assistance to researchers, as well as research funding agencies, in choosing ethically acceptable, impact-pursuing projects.

Purpose Trust plays an important role in the organisation of healthcare services. In Norway, the establishment of mandatory municipal acute wards with 24 h inpatient services introduces a new unit into the healthcare system. This article discusses how this new health care service succeeds in building trust with patients and among healthcare workers. Design/methodology/approach The article is an in-depth case study of a single, exemplary inter-municipal acute ward. The study draws on interviews with COPD patients, the leader and doctors at the ward. The study also includes observations of daily work at the municipal acute ward. Moreover, administrators and healthcare workers at related healthcare institutions have been interviewed. Data were analysed using a qualitative method. Findings The study reveals that trust is built in complex relations and that it has both individual and systemic factors. The practices employed in the daily treatment and care of patients and in encounters between health care personnel and patients are important trust-building processes; however, these processes depend on structures and routines that promote efficient and adequate inter-organisational communication and patient-oriented procedures. Practical implications The study provides insight into how trust dynamics work on multiple organisational levels and how they depend on both individual and systemic factors. Additionally, the study may provide a picture of the importance of trust in organising healthcare services in the future. Originality/value Lessons regarding trust building inspired by data from a case-study care institution can be applied in different care settings and countries.

The aim of this research paper is to identify advantages and barriers to implementation and usage of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), specifically the Da Vinci robot, at a larger regional hospital in Norway and from a multiple stakeholder perspective. The identified advantages and barriers are connected to the socio-technical system framework SEIPS, thereby establishing a broader contextual system perspective on RAS implementation and usage. Our findings both align and extend upon existing human factors and ergonomics (HFE) knowledge on RAS in the operating room. In terms of specific future directions, we believe that a pressing concern for both management and current HFE research involving RAS implementation and usage relates to exploring and accounting for the close connections between the organization itself and the external stakeholders that exert a considerable influence on the internal work system and processes and the ability to achieve cost-efficiency and safety levels. We further conclude that the SEIPS framework can be a powerful tool in drawing or eliciting the larger contextual picture of RAS implementation and usage, and we encourage further HFE research to explore its application in different contexts to improve the current knowledge base.

Purpose: Unequal social conditions that provide people with unequal opportunities to live healthy lives are considered unjust and associated with “health inequity”. Governing power is impacting people's lives through laws, policies and professional decisions, and can be used intentionally to combat health inequity by addressing and changing people's living- and working conditions. Little attention is paid to how these ways of exercising governing power unintentionally can structure further conditions for health inequity. In this paper, the authors coin the term “governance determinants of health” (GDHs). The authors' discussion of GDHs potential impact on health inequity can help avoid the implementation of governing strategies with an adverse impact on health equality. This paper aims to discuss the aforementioned objective.Design/methodology/approach: The authors identify Governance Determinants of Health, the GDHs. GDHs refer to governance strategies that structurally impact healthcare systems and health equality. The authors focus on the unintended, blind sides of GDHs that maintain or reinforce the effects of socioeconomic inequality on health.Findings: The power to organize healthcare is manifested in distinct structural approaches such as juridification, politicalization, bureaucratization and medical standardization. The authors explore the links between different forms of governance and health inequalities.Research limitations/implications: The authors' discussion in this article is innovative as it seeks to develop a framework that targets power dynamics inherent in GHDs to help identify and avoid GDHs that may promote unequal access to healthcare and prompt health inequity. However, this framework has limitations as the real-world, blurred and intertwined aspects of governing instruments are simplified for analytical purposes. As such, it risks overestimating the boundaries between the separate instruments and reducing the complexity of how the GDHs work in practice. Consequently, this kind of theory-driven framework does not do justice to the myriad of peoples' complex empirical practices where GDHs may overlap and intertwine with each other. Nevertheless, this framework can still help assist governing authorities in imagining a direction for the impacts of GDHs on health equity, so they can take precautionary steps to avoid adverse impacts.Originality/value: The authors develop and explore – and demonstrate – the relevance of a framework that can assist governing authorities in anticipating the impacts of GDHs on health inequity.