Background The article describes a healthcare staffing exercise that took place in a Cancer Hospital IV, Brazil’s first public palliative care unit. There are numerous gaps in the literature on specialized cancer staffing. Palliative care is a therapy modality that should begin with the diagnosis of a chronic disease, at which point the personnel must be technically and numerically adequate, as well as well-distributed, to provide coverage of the population that requires this type of care. Methods The WISN tool was chosen after a systematic review of the use of workload studies in palliative care, because it fulfills this objective. The WISN method is based on a health worker's workload, was developed in the late 1990s in the health sector and has been field-tested and implemented in several countries. Direct observation was used as the fieldwork approach, which was carried out by 18 research assistants with the assistance of two supervisors. They monitored 60 professionals in seven categories for 2 weeks on weekdays in the morning and afternoon periods: nursing, pharmacy, physical therapy, medical, nutrition, psychology, and social services. Results Except for the medical staff, which at the time included additional physicians on loan from a partner institution to address a shortage in this professional group, all categories exhibited overload with WISN ratios ranging from 0.53 to 0.97. The analysis of time spent on individual activities indicated flaws with the services' informal organizations. The authors also noticed a strong emphasis on support activities and a lack of a clear schedule for training and research. The study's findings included a definition of standard activities for each professional group, an analysis and comparison of activities by categories, departments, and work shifts, a standard workload for training and research, and recommendations to include human resources planning as a fundamental part of a national policy for palliative care. Conclusions The WISN tool can be used to plan human resources in cancer centers that provide palliative care, and it provides for a variety of analyses that can be combined with other approaches in the literature.
Resumo Este artigo apresenta os mecanismos de elaboração do planejamento estratégico institucional do INCA em uma década e identifica aspectos subjetivos dos profissionais, mecanismos de gestão institucional e entraves gerenciais da Administração Pública como temas relevantes que impactam no processo. Além disso, problematiza o gerencialismo, a ênfase no estrito cumprimento de regras e a análise limitada de contexto nos serviços de saúde. O objetivo foi descrever a evolução do processo de planejamento e apresentar como a percepção de profissionais sobre cumprimento de normas gerenciais influencia na organização da gestão. Resulta de um estudo qualitativo, com o emprego de entrevista individual semiestruturada realizado em 2012 e de análise documental concluída em 2021. Resultados demonstram como aspectos intersubjetivos das relações de trabalho podem contribuir para afastar os trabalhadores da tomada de decisões estratégicas ou facilitar a participação e comprometimento para o aprimoramento da gestão de uma instituição. Conclui-se que a apropriação de gestores do debate de temas como conflito, motivação, liderança e subjetividade são fundamentais para o avanço e melhoria do processo de planejamento.
Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic challenged the scientific community to find and develop a vaccine to fight the disease. However, and despite the vaccines developed thus far, problems with achieving high vaccine coverages have emerged, even among high-risk groups such as health and care workers (HCW). The lack of experience with such extensive vaccination created knowledge gaps in health policy and multisector decisions worldwide. Objective: This systematic review aims to examine factors that influence HCW's adherence to COVID-19 vaccination and national policies to vaccinate the HCW and other target groups. Methods: Searches were performed in the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, Lilacs, and WHO databases, besides Google Scholar for grey literature. The eligibility criterion for inclusion was being a member of the HCW. Vaccination was the target intervention, and the COVID-19 pandemic was the context. Qualitative synthesis used a meta-aggregation approach. Results: Nineteen articles were included in the review, with study samples varying from 48 to 5,708 participants. Most of the evidence came from cross-sectional and qualitative studies. The main findings were related to vaccine hesitancy rather than acceptance. Factors associated with HCW vaccine hesitancy included subjective feelings such as safety concerns, related to rapid vaccine development, and insufficient testing. Non-adherence to vaccination by HCW can contribute to vaccine hesitancy in the general population. Countries have adopted few public policies to address this problem, and the main concern is whether to enforce vaccination and the extent to which measures are legal. Conclusion: Despite the large number of studies identified in the review, the quality of the evidence base remains weak. Skepticism, mistrust, and hesitancy toward vaccination are global issues that can jeopardize vaccination coverage. Governments need guidance to develop gender-specific policies to inform HCW and the public about the need to adhere to vaccination in the current and future pandemic scenarios.
BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted pre-existing weaknesses in health and care systems and services and shortages of health and care workers (HCWs). As a result, policymakers needed to adopt measures to improve the health and care workforce (HCWF) capacity. This review aims to identify countries’ range of policies and management interventions implemented to improve HCWs’ capacity to address the COVID-19 pandemic response, synthesize their evidence on effectiveness, and identify gaps in the evidence. METHODS The literature was searched in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, LILACS-BVS, WHO’s COVID-19 Research Database and the ILO, OECD and HSRM websites for literature and documents published between January 2020 and March 2022. Eligibility criteria were HCWs as participants and policy and management interventions aiming to improve HCWF capacity to address the COVID-19 pandemic response. Risk of bias was assessed with Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools (CAT) and certainty of the evidence in presented outcomes with GRADE. RESULTS The searches retrieved 3378 documents. A total of 69 were included, but only 8 presented outcomes of interventions implemented. Most of the selected documents described at least one intervention implemented by countries at the organizational environment level to increase the flexibility and capacity of the HCWF to respond to the pandemic, followed by interventions to attract and retain HCWs in safe and decent working environments. There was a lack of studies addressing social protection, human resources for health information systems, and regarding the role of community health workers and other community-based providers. Regarding the risk of bias, most of documents were rated as medium or high quality (JBI’s CAT), while the evidence presented for the outcomes of interventions was classified as mostly low-certainty evidence (GRADE). CONCLUSION Countries have implemented various interventions, some innovative, in response to the pandemic, and others had their processes started earlier and accelerated by the pandemic. The evidence regarding the impact and efficacy of the strategies used by countries during the pandemic still requires further research.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.