Introduction: The 2021 European floods in Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands significantly impacted healthcare. With climate change increasing flood risks, healthcare preparedness is essential. Floods affect healthcare directly and indirectly by disrupting patient access, damaging infrastructure and impeding care continuity. Our interdisciplinary research in the Netherlands systematically assesses flood impacts on healthcare, optimises disaster preparedness, patient logistics, and continuity and explores crisis governance, incorporating lessons from coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Our multi-sited, interdisciplinary project titled “Pandemic lessons for flood disaster preparedness” includes literature reviews on: (i) the (in) direct impacts of floods on healthcare, (ii) disaster decision-making strategies and (iii) patient logistics during crises. Empirically, ethnographic methods (interviews, focus groups, document analyses, and observations) will: (a) assess hospital flood preparedness, (b) explore decision-making and crisis management strategies and (c) analyse the dynamics of health system governance during floods. Data from these sources and flood scenarios will inform models on healthcare impacts and decision-making, culminating in a simulation game for research and training. Discussion: This study offers a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach to understanding and improving healthcare system preparedness for floods. By integrating diverse fields such as healthcare governance, disaster risk management, logistics and hydraulic engineering, we provide a unique lens on resilience. A key strength is the incorporation of lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing us to draw parallels between pandemic response and flood preparedness. In addition, our simulation game serves as a robust tool for translating knowledge into practice. However, the study’s reliance on collaboration with busy healthcare and disaster response professionals may limit engagement. Moreover, the absence of direct public and patient involvement in the research design, though partially mitigated by engaging representative organizations, presents a potential limitation. Lastly, the challenge of obtaining real-time data from flood events could introduce recall bias, but triangulation of various data sources aims to address this issue. Despite these challenges, the study’s integration of long-term data from recent floods and focus on healthcare-specific crisis governance provides valuable insights for improving disaster preparedness.

Background: Central to Safety-II is promoting resilience of healthcare practices. In the “Room for Resilience” research project we focus on the role of horizontal and vertical accountability in healthcare teams and aim to discover how the relation between the two impacts team reflections and discussions. In this article, we report on an explorative study at the start of the project which aimed to assess the structures and dynamics of horizontal and vertical accountability. Methods: A qualitative study in six teams in three hospitals in the Netherlands. For the project, each team selected a specific clinical process to work on (e.g. pain assessment). We interviewed healthcare professionals, managers, and quality advisors about these processes, how they are discussed in practice and how teams need to account for them. Additionally, we observed the processes and how teams discuss them in practice. In total, we conducted 35 interviews and 67.5 h of observation. Transcripts and field notes were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Professionals at times varied in what they considered the right approach in the clinical process, with differing views on the importance of certain actions. When processes were discussed, this mostly was done during clinical work, and it often concerned reflections about the care for a specific patient instead of reflecting on the team’s general approach of the clinical process. Organized reflections on the processes were sparse. How processes were conducted in practice deviated from guidelines, mainly due to staff shortages, a perceived lack of value of a guideline, equipment issues, and collaboration issues. For most processes, accountability to hierarchical layers consisted of quality indicator scores. Professionals were tasked with registering indicator data but did not find this meaningful for their work. Conclusions: The observed different perspectives within teams on what good quality care is show the importance of having team reflections about these processes. How vertical accountability was organized at times impacted the conditions for teams to discuss resilient performance. Following these findings, we recommend that reflection on resilient practice and the role of accountability processes is organized on all levels in (and outside) the organization.

BACKGROUND: Prompted by recent shocks and stresses to health systems globally, various studies have emerged on health system resilience. Our aim is to describe how health system resilience is operationalised within empirical studies and previous reviews. We compare these to the core conceptualisations and characteristics of resilience in a broader set of domains (specifically, engineering, socio-ecological, organisational and community resilience concepts), and trace the different schools, concepts and applications of resilience across the health literature. METHODS: We searched the Pubmed database for concepts related to 'resilience' and 'health systems'. Two separate analyses were conducted for included studies: a total of n = 87 empirical studies on health system resilience were characterised according to part of health systems covered, type of threat, resilience phase, resilience paradigm, and approaches to building resilience; and a total of n = 30 reviews received full-text review and characterised according to type of review, resilience concepts identified in the review, and theoretical framework or underlying resilience conceptualisation. RESULTS: The intersection of health and resilience clearly has gained importance in the academic discourse with most papers published since 2018 in a variety of journals and in response to external threats, or in reference to more frequent hospital crisis management. Most studies focus on either resilience of health systems generally (and thereby responding to an external shock or stress), or on resilience within hospitals (and thereby to regular shocks and operations). Less attention has been given to community-based and primary care, whether formal or informal. While most publications do not make the research paradigm explicit, 'resilience engineering' is the most prominent one, followed by 'community resilience' and 'organisational resilience'. The social-ecological systems roots of resilience find the least application, confirming our findings of the limited application of the concept of transformation in the health resilience literature. CONCLUSIONS: Our review shows that the field is fragmented, especially in the use of resilience paradigms and approaches from non-health resilience domains, and the health system settings in which these are used. This fragmentation and siloed approach can be problematic given the connections within and between the complex and adaptive health systems, ranging from community actors to local, regional, or national public health organisations to secondary care. Without a comprehensive definition and framework that captures these interdependencies, operationalising, measuring and improving resilience remains challenging.