Resources for action and organizational resilience in times of COVID‐19: A study in health care

• Published in: Human factors and ergonomics in manufacturing & service industries Vol. 34; no. 6; pp. 516 - 526
• Main Authors: Righi, Angela Weber, Wachs, Priscila, Ransolin, Natália, Bertoni, Vanessa Becker
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hoboken Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01-11-2024
• Subjects: Built environment; Communications equipment; COVID-19; Decision making; Health care; Medical personnel; organizational resilience; Organizations; Pandemics; Performance evaluation; Resilience; resilient health care; resources for action; Urban environments
• ISSN: 1090-8471; 1520-6564
• DOI: 10.1002/hfm.21045

The COVID‐19 pandemic challenged health care organizations to cope with major disruptions, especially in the first waves. Several investigations were undertaken to understand how to support resilience during similar unexpected events. In this study, we attempted to unveil the resilient performance of health care organizations during the first waves of the COVID‐19 pandemic from the viewpoint of resources for action. Thus, the research objectives are twofold: (i) to evaluate organizational resilience in facing COVID‐19 by hospitals in Brazil and (ii) to evaluate the relationship between resources for action and resilient performance. Firstly, an online survey was sent to front‐line health care workers, resulting in 111 responses. Then, a questerview was undertaken through online interviews with some participants of the previous phase. Resources for action were interpreted as five aspects supporting decision‐making in health care organizations: information and communication; team, equipment, and tools; standard operating procedure (SOP); training; and built environment. Each resource was then unfolded based on the four potentials for resilient performance (i.e., anticipate, monitor, respond and learn). Respondents strongly agreed that their institutions are resilient (M = 4.15; standard deviation [SD] = 0.91). The potentials to learn (M = 4.23; SD = 0.96) and respond (M = 4.08; SD = 1.02) stood out, followed by monitoring (M = 3.85; SD = 1.07) and anticipating (M = 3.70; SD = 1.11). Although some differences stand out, findings corroborate with the joint performance of the resources for action to support resilience performance. Information and communication were the most present among the resources for action (M = 4.20). Making resources for action visible is a strategy for designing resilient systems, as it can be considered a bridge linking different resilience levels (micro, meso, and macro). Suggestions for future studies point out the need to promote the development and evaluation of resources for action in health care institutions.