The pressure of COVID-19 on health system functioning has made policies to strengthen health system resilience a major theme of research. Accordingly, crises like COVID-19 can be seen as windows of opportunity for health system reforms to enhance health system resilience. In Finland, COVID-19 arrived on the eve of a major health system reform. In 2023 running health and social services will be transferred from 309 municipalities to 22 counties. While the reform was framed before the pandemic, we explore how lessons from COVID-19 matter for the future reform. Our results come from interviews of 53 top managers and civil servants in the year one of COVID-19, representing municipalities, municipal healthcare authorities and state agencies. The results offer a lookout to how national and local healthcare leaders view pandemic responses in connection to the future reform. Finland fared well in the pandemic compared to many countries e.g. in terms of excess deaths. However, our results reveal a tension between major issues in managing COVID-19 and implementing the reform. While the data suggest that dealing with a prolonged crisis proved challenging due to lack of trust, communication, and transparency between national and subnational actors in the health system, the dominant lessons learned and needs for reform among the interviewees build upon obvious fixes, such as ensuring supply of PPEs and ICU beds for the next pandemic. While being important in preparedness, these can build a legacy not tackling the root causes of lacking resilience and can be inconsistent with reform goals. The pandemic provides an opportunity to analyse the reformed system from a new viewpoint and may reveal weaknesses not considered in reform planning. Reforms can impact health system resilience in positive and negative ways. While different shocks may open new avenues for system transformation, they can also create path dependencies weakening the systems’ ability to prepare for unknown threats.
Background Care integration through high level care continuation for older patients discharged from the hospital may secure positive health outcomes and reduce subsequent emergency visits. Integrated transitional care is, however, challenged by fragmented care delivery systems. We explored integrated transitional care from the delivery system perspective in three Nordic cities (Copenhagen, Stockholm and Tampere) to compare levels of integration of social and health service delivery systems and care paths for older patients discharged from hospital. Methods Information on organizational structure and care integration was obtained from administrative documents, legislation and statistics, webpages of the cities, and empirical studies. Based on the material we outlined the degree of integration at different levels and mapped the possible care paths for older patients discharged from the hospital for each city. Results All three cities are characterized by fragmented care systems for older patients based on financially and organizationally independent institutions. Sweden and Denmark, however, have introduced legislation to steer the integration of services between the local and regional level actors. However, older patients still have complex care paths after discharge from hospital care. Conclusions The fragmented care systems for older patients consisting of independent institutions across local and regional levels may impede integrated transitional care. Alternative care settings for older people with different needs could be an asset, but they can also form a hurdle for care continuation if the responsibilities and liaison between these sites are not clear. Key messages The fragmented organisation of care systems for older patients may impede integrated transitional care. The care facilities for older patients after discharge is targeted to accommodate the complex and varying needs, but pose challenges for continuity of care.
Background Crisis management Managing crises often requires diverging from predetermined plans. In this paper, we investigate how public health authorities in Finland acted, what kind of roles they adopted and how the expected roles and actions appeared in relation to the legislative framework and preparedness plans during the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on inter-country comparisons, Finland has managed COVID-19 pandemic relatively well. The study provides qualitative insights on pandemic governance in a decentralized multi-stakeholder public health system. Methods Semi-structured interviews (n = 53) with key public health actors at central, regional and local levels were conducted during March 2021-February 2022. The data was analysed with thematic analysis. Results The predetermined roles and duties for pandemic management were not unequivocal in practice and appeared unrealistic considering the resources of the public health system. Responsibility was divided between several actors, but lack of interaction enhanced emerging tensions between them. Local and regional actors experienced national steering intervening in operational decisions. At central level distrust towards the capabilities of local and regional actors was expressed. The pandemic was framed and managed as a health crisis despite of its wider societal effects. This challenged local and regional decision-making, where wider societal impacts had to be considered. Conclusions Public health authorities in Finland interpreted their roles and responsibilities in pandemic governance in various ways: some actors adopted more active agency than others and the roles were not always in line with the existing regulative framework. Key messages • Interpretation of the roles outlined in preparedness plans are context dependent and may lead to conflicts between different actors. • In a system with multiple actors at multiple levels, building trust and improving interaction are important for coordinated action.
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.