Hospitals operate in increasingly complex and dynamically uncertain environments. To understand how hospital organizations can cope with such profound uncertainty, this article presents a multiple case study of five hospitals during the COVID-19 crisis in a heavily hit region of the Netherlands. We find that hospitals make adaptations in five key categories, namely: reorganization, decision-making, human resources, material resources, and planning. These adaptations offer insights into the core capabilities needed by hospitals to cope with dynamic uncertainty. Our findings highlight the need for hospitals to become more flexible without sacrificing efficiency. Organizations can accomplish this by building in more sensing and seizing capabilities to be better prepared for and respond to environmental change. Furthermore, transforming capabilities allow organizations to be more resilient and responsive in the face of ongoing uncertainty. We make recommendations on how hospitals can build these capabilities and address the core challenges they face in this pursuit.

Maintaining hospital workers’ psychological health is essential for hospitals’ capacities to sustain organizational functioning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Workers’ personal resilience can be an important factor in preserving psychological health, but how this exactly works in high stakes situations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, requires further exploration. Similarly, the role of team social climate as contributor to individual psychological health seems obvious, but how it exactly prevents workers from developing depressive complaints in prolonged crises remains under investigated. The present paper therefore applies conservation of resources theory to study the relationships between resilience, team social climate, and depressive complaints, specifically focusing on worries about infections as an important explanatory mechanism. Based on questionnaire data of 1126 workers from five hospitals in the Netherlands during the second peak of the pandemic, this paper estimates a moderated-mediation model. This model shows that personal resilience negatively relates to depressive complaints (β = −0.99, p < 0.001, 95%CI = −1.45–−0.53), partially as personal resilience is negatively associated with worries about infections (β = −0.42, p < 0.001, 95%CI = −0.50–−0.33) which in turn are positively related to depressive complaints (β = 0.75, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.31–1.19). Additionally, team social climate is associated with a lower effect of worries about being infected and infecting others on depressive complaints (β = −0.88, p = 0.03, 95% CI = −1.68–−0.09). These findings suggest that resilience can be an important individual level resource in preventing depressive complaints. Moreover, the findings imply that hospitals have an important responsibility to maintain a good team social climate to shield workers from infection related worries building up to depressive complaints.

To effectively function and adapt in crises, healthcare organizations rely on the skills and commitment of their workforce. Yet, our current understanding of how employees’ workplace commitment is affected by and evolves throughout the course of a crisis remains limited. In this paper, we explore the commitment of hospital staff to an important workplace target, the COVID-19 crisis response, and show how this commitment develops over time. We report on an exploratory case study of hospital staff in a heavily hit region of the Netherlands. We conducted interviews with hospital executives, management, medical and support staff to uncover the issues hospitals faced in recruiting staff to provide COVID-19 care throughout the first and second wave of the crisis. Our findings suggest that while staff initially exhibited high levels of commitment to aiding in the crisis effort, staff were perceived to exhibit lower levels of commitment in the second wave, complicating the provision of COVID-19 care. We unveil three contributing factors to this shift, namely: competing demands, energy depletion and a lack of support and appreciation. Our findings suggest that while staff were initially willing to dedicate themselves and take responsibility for the crisis effort, as their other more stable commitments became more salient in the second wave, their willingness to dedicate limited resources to the crisis effort decreased. In our discussion, we examine the implications of our findings for the literature on workplace commitment, and advance our understanding of employee workplace commitment during crises.

No abstract

Background Psychosocial support programs are a way for hospitals to support the mental health of their staff. However, while support is needed, utilization of support by hospital staff remains low. This study aims to identify reasons for non-use and elements that are important to consider when offering psychosocial support. Methods This mixed-method, multiple case study used survey data and in-depth interviews to assess the extent of psychosocial support use, reasons for non-use and perceived important elements regarding the offering of psychosocial support among Dutch hospital staff. The study focused on a time of especially high need, namely the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive statistics were used to assess frequency of use among 1514 staff. The constant comparative method was used to analyze answers provided to two open-ended survey questions (n = 274 respondents) and in-depth interviews (n = 37 interviewees). Results The use of psychosocial support decreased from 8.4% in December 2020 to 3.6% by September 2021. We identified four main reasons for non-use of support: deeming support unnecessary, deeming support unsuitable, being unaware of the availability, or feeling undeserving of support. Furthermore, we uncovered four important elements: offer support structurally after the crisis, adjust support to diverse needs, ensure accessibility and awareness, and an active role for supervisors. Conclusions Our results show that the low use of psychosocial support by hospital staff is shaped by individual, organizational, and support-specific factors. These factors can be targeted to increase use of psychosocial support, whereby it is important to also focus on the wider hospital workforce in addition to frontline staff.

No abstract

No abstract