In the field of implementation research, it is widely recognised that 'context matters.’ Attempts to implement innovations, research and new knowledge into practice invariably meet contextual challenges at multiple levels during the process of implementation. The paper by Squires and colleagues provides a detailed insight into the many different features and attributes of context. Yet, as this commentary argues, there are significant challenges ahead if we are to apply our growing understanding about context to improve the practice of implementation in everyday healthcare. This will require attention to the practicalities of working with context to achieve successful implementation.The article by Waitzberg et al on dual agency in hospitals reports on three strategies to mitigate dilemmas arising from conflicting clinical and economic considerations. This could be further explored by using systems science methods that allow in-depth analyses of (health) system dynamics, networks, and agent-based modelling, and that take into account local context, incentives and how institutions work. Future studies may also draw on the literature of multi-criteria decision-making and evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) that are increasingly being used to optimise legitimate health benefit package design. Toolkits to assist hospital professionals in improving their decision-making need to be practical, with ample attention for the process of decision-making, including transparency, use of evidence, and opportunities for health professionals (and possibly others stakeholders) to contest or formally appeal against certain decisions.Adaptive capacity is a critical component of building resilience in healthcare (RiH). Adaptive capacity comprises the ability of a system to cope with and adapt to disturbances. However, „shocks,” such as the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, can potentially exceed critical adaptation thresholds and lead to systemic collapse. To effectively manage healthcare systems during periods of crises, both adaptive and transformative changes are necessary. This commentary discusses adaptation and transformation as two complementary, integral components of resilience and applies them to healthcare. We treat resilience as an emergent property of complex systems that accounts for multiple, often disparately distinct regimes in which multiple processes (eg, adaptation, recovery) are subsumed and operate. We argue that Convergence Mental Health and other transdisciplinary paradigms such as Brain Capital and One Health can facilitate resilience planning and management in healthcare systems.

Deliberative dialogues (DDs) are used in policy-making and healthcare research to enhance knowledge exchange and research implementation strategies. They allow organized dissemination and integration of relevant research, contextual considerations, and input from diverse stakeholder perspectives. Despite recent interest in involving patient and public perspectives in the design and development of healthcare services, DDs typically involve only professional stakeholders. A DD took place in May 2019 that aimed to improve the social environment (eg, safety, social inclusion) and decrease social isolation in a rent-geared-to-income housing complex in a large urban community. Tenants of the housing complex, public health, primary care, and social service providers participated. This study aimed to determine how including community tenants impacted the planning and execution of a DD, including adjustments made to the traditional DD model to improve accessibility.

A Core Working Group (CWG) and Steering Committe Similarly, professional stakeholders did not highly value consensus as an output, although it was highly valued among tenants, as was actionability.

These findings demonstrate the viability of and provide recommendations for DDs involving public participants. Like previous DDs, participants found the use of engaged facilitators, issue briefs, and off-the-record deliberations useful. Similarly, professional stakeholders did not highly value consensus as an output, although it was highly valued among tenants, as was actionability.

Healthcare is complex with multi-professional staff and a variety of patient care pathways. Time pressure and minimal margins for errors, as well as tension between hierarchical power and the power of the professions, make it challenging to implement new policies or procedures. This paper explores five improvement cases in healthcare integrating system dynamics (SD) into action research (AR), aiming to identify methodological aspects of how this integration supported multi-professional groups to discover workable solutions to work-related challenges.

This re-analysis was conducted by a multi-disciplinary research group using an iterative abductive approach applying qualitative analysis to structure and understand the empirical material. Frameworks for consultancy assignments/client projects were used to identify case project stages (workflow steps) and socio-analytical questions were used to bridge between the AR and SD perspectives.

All studied cases began with an extensive AR-inspired inventory of prohe likelihood of sustained actualisation.

By integrating SD into AR, more favourable outcomes for the client organization may be achieved than when applying either approach in isolation. We found that SD provided a platform that facilitated experiential learning in the AR process. The identified results were calibrated to local needs and circumstances, and compared to traditional top-down implementation for change processes, improved the likelihood of sustained actualisation.

Health in All Policies (HiAP) encompasses collaboration across government and the consideration of health in various governmental sector’s policies and decisions. Despite increasing advocacy, interest, and uptake in HiAP globally, empirical and evaluative studies are underrepresented in this growing literature, particularly literature on HiAP implementation at the local level. Finland has been a pioneer in and champion for HiAP.

A realist explanatory case study design was used to test hypotheses about how HiAP is implemented in Kuopio, Finland. Semi-structured interviews with ten government employees from various sectors were conducted. Data from interviews and literature were analyzed with the aims of uncovering explanatory mechanisms in the form of context-strategy-mechanism-outcome (CSMO) configurations related to implementation strategies. Evidence was evaluated for quality based on triangulation of sources and strength of evidence. We hypothesized that having or creating a common goal between sectors. Inclusion of not only strategies for HiAP, but also the explanatory mechanisms, aids in elucidating how and why HiAP is successfully implemented in a local setting.

At the municipal level, having or creating a common goal, leadership from policy and political elites, and the presence of committed staff can facilitate HiAP implementation. Inclusion of not only strategies for HiAP, but also the explanatory mechanisms, aids in elucidating how and why HiAP is successfully implemented in a local setting.According to Lacy-Nichols and Williams, the food industry is increasingly forestalling regulation with incremental concessions and co-option of policy-making discourses and processes; bolstering their legitimacy via partnerships with credible stakeholders; and disarming critics by amending their product portfolios whilst maintaining high sales volumes and profits. Their assessment raises a number of fundamental philosophical questions that we must address in order to form an appropriate public health response is it appropriate to treat every act of corporate citizenship with cynicism? If voluntary action leads to better health outcomes, does it matter whether profits are preserved? How should we balance any short-term benefits from industry-led reforms against the longer-term risk stemming from corporate capture of policy-making networks? I argue for a nuanced approach, focused on carefully defined health outcomes; allowing corporations the benefit of the doubt, but implementing robust binding measures the moment voluntary actions fail to meet independently set objectives.Meropenem, a representative β-lactam antibiotic, is widely used to treat complicated and serious infections. Therefore, it is of great significance to monitor the plasma drug concentration for individualized antimicrobial therapy. This study first describes the development and validation of high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry cubed method for monitoring meropenem in human plasma. Protein precipitation with methanol and a chromatographic analysis time of 7 min make this method simple and of high throughput. Meropenem was extracted from human plasma with recoveries >94.1%. Calibration curves were linear (R2 > 0.995) in the concentration range of 0.5-50 μg/mL. Overall accuracy and precision did not exceed 8.0% as well as no significant matrix effect was observed. The novelty of this method is that the triple-stage mass spectrometry technology improves the selectivity and sensitivity. A comparison of the presented method and traditional liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method was assessed in 44 patients treated with meropenem and Passing-Bablok regression coefficients and Bland-Altman plots showed that no significant difference between the two methods. So the triple-stage mass spectrometry method developed in this study is appropriate and practical for the monitor of meropenem in the daily clinical laboratory practice.We reviewed all 1230 claims against anaesthesia notified to NHS Resolution (formerly the NHS Litigation Authority, 1995-2017) in England between 2008 and 2018. Claims were categorised by incident type, severity (whether physical or psychological), and cost, and comparisons were made against a similar published analysis of data from 1995 to 2007. While the annual number of claims against anaesthesia increased by 62% from the earlier period, anaesthesia now accounts for smaller proportions of all claims submitted to NHS Resolution (1.5% vs. 2.5%) and of the total cost of all claims (0.7% vs. 2.4%). The absolute costs related to anaesthesia claims rose over 300%, totalling £145 million between 2008 and 2018, but the mean cost per closed claim (retail price index adjusted) fell by 6% to £74,883. The most common clinical categories were regional anaesthesia (24%), inadequate anaesthesia (20%) and drug administration (20%). Claims related to airway management, central venous catheterisation and cardiac arrest remained infrequent but severe and costly. The proportion of claims relating to regional anaesthesia and obstetric anaesthesia fell significantly, but claims relating to peripheral nerve blockade doubled. Our analysis includes categories relating to organisational and human factors which are present in a substantial proportion of claims; categories with the highest mean cost per claim included delayed care, planning, monitoring and consent. Overall, the specialty of anaesthesia is at low risk of litigation. Our analysis provides important insights into current and changing patterns in claim distributions that may help improve the quality of patient care and reduce future litigation. We recommend the establishment of a structure for national review and learning from all cases of litigation.