BackgroundIncidents and quality problems are a prime cause why health care leaders are calling to redesign health care delivery. One of the concepts used is lean thinking. Yet, lean often leads to resistance. Also, there is a lack of high quality evidence supporting lean premises. In this paper, we present an overview of lean thinking and its application to health care.Development, theory and application of lean thinking to health careLean thinking evolved from a tool designed to improve operational shop-floor performance at an automotive manufacturer to a management approach with both operational and sociotechnical aspects. Sociotechnical dynamics have until recently not received much attention. At the same time a balanced approach might lead to a situation where operational and sociotechnial improvements are mutually reinforcing. Application to health care has been limited and focussed mainly on operational aspects using original lean tools. A more integrative approach would be to pay more attention to sociotechnical dynamics of lean implementation efforts. Also, the need to use the original lean tools may be limited, because health care may have different instruments and tools already in use that are in line with lean thinking principles.DiscussionWe believe lean thinking has the potential to improve health care delivery. At the same time, there are methodological and practical considerations that need to be taken into account. Otherwise, lean implementation will be superficial and fail, adding to existing resistance and making it more difficult to improve health care in the long term.

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated sudden and radical changes in mental health care delivery, as strict social distancing and lockdown measures were imposed in the early phases of the pandemic. Almost overnight, practitioners were forced to transfer their face-to-face care practice to online means. To understand the implications of this drastic change for mental health care, and to improve the online care offerings, an online qualitative survey was held among mental health care professionals in Netherlands (n = 51). Our findings indicate that technological and usability problems pose a significant challenge, as do difficulties to establish rapport with clients. Moreover, not all mental health issues and treatment forms are equally amenable to online interaction. In contrast, in many instances, practitioners were positive about the effectiveness of treatment, and reported flexibility, a lower threshold for contact, and lack of travel time as advantages. Their most prominent needs concern better technological, organizational, and logistical support. It is critical that these needs are acted upon by institutions and governments. In addition, current results inform future research on the improvement of e-mental health technologies.

BackgroundThe internet offers major opportunities in supporting mental health care, and a variety of technology-mediated mental and behavioral health services have been developed. Yet, despite growing evidence for the effectiveness of these services, their acceptance and use in clinical practice remains low. So far, the current literature still lacks a structured insight into the experienced drivers and barriers to the adoption of electronic mental health (eMental health) from the perspective of clinical psychologists.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to gain an in-depth and comprehensive understanding of the drivers and barriers for psychologists in adopting eMental health tools, adding to previous work by also assessing drivers and analyzing relationships among these factors, and subsequently by developing a structured representation of the obtained findings.MethodsThe study adopted a qualitative descriptive approach consisting of in-depth semistructured interviews with clinical psychologists working in the Netherlands (N=12). On the basis of the findings, a model was constructed that was then examined through a communicative validation.ResultsIn general, a key driver for psychologists to adopt eMental health is the belief and experience that it can be beneficial to them or their clients. Perceived advantages that are novel to literature include the acceleration of the treatment process, increased intimacy of the therapeutic relationship, and new treatment possibilities due to eMental health. More importantly, a relation was found between the extent to which psychologists have adopted eMental health and the particular drivers and barriers they experience. This differentiation is incorporated in the Levels of Adoption of eMental Health (LAMH) model that was developed during this study to provide a structured representation of the factors that influence the adoption of eMental health.ConclusionsThe study identified both barriers and drivers, several of which are new to the literature and found a relationship between the nature and importance of the various drivers and barriers perceived by psychologists and the extent to which they have adopted eMental health. These findings were structured in a conceptual model to further enhance the current understanding. The LAMH model facilitates further research on the process of adopting eMental health, which will subsequently enable targeted recommendations with respect to technology, training, and clinical practice to ensure that mental health care professionals as well as their clients will benefit optimally from the current (and future) range of available eMental health options.

The PedsQL seems a valid instrument in measuring QoL in children referred for psychiatric problems.

A B S T R A C T Background:As is often reported in the literature exploring the research-practice gap, applying the principles of evidence-based practice is easier said than done. Action research is a methodology with an explicit intent of linking the worlds of research and practice. This review attempts to answer the question: What is known about implementing evidence-based practice in nursing through action research?Approach: A total of 21 action research studies have been used to answer this question. To prevent possible confusion over terminology, we used a conceptual framework that distinguishes various influencing factors in terms of four target groups (ranging from the individual end user to society as a whole) at whom the strategy is aimed and various strategies (ranging from individual feedback to contracting care providers) related to the same four target groups.Findings: Studies often failed to name the implementation strategies applied, necessitating deduction from the text by the reader. In most of the studies the implementation strategy was directed at a combination of target groups. Many of the projects reviewed reported positive contextual outcomes, "knowledge improvement" among nurses, and to a lesser degree, improved "performance." Patient outcomes were the least reported outcome measure.Conclusion: With an element of caution, this review concludes that the implementation of evidencebased practice using action research is a promising approach. Caution is needed because of the lack of detailed descriptions of implementation strategies, and their intensity and frequency prevents us from drawing firm conclusions. These are important considerations for any action researcher intending to implement EBP using this approach.