Complex adaptive systems approaches in health care—A slow but real emergence?

Complex adaptive systems (CAS), to reiterate, are systems composed of many individual parts or agents in which patterns can emerges as a result of agents deploying “simple rules” from the “bottom-up” without external control—CAS are “self-organizing” systems. “Simple rules” in health care would include seeking to optimize both patient well-being and the functioning of professionals. If elements of a CAS system are altered, the system adapts or reacts. The behaviour of a complex adaptive system can be inherently unpredictable and non-linear as elements of the system, the internal (eg, professionals and managers) and external agents (eg, patients, families, and society), have multiple perturbations, changes, and interdependencies. Despite the flurry of interest in complex systems and non-linear dynamics in recent decades, application of knowledge and innovation about complexity and adaptation in systems for health care has been slow. Critics typically state that there is no “evidence” that applying CAS and complexity science is needed or “works” in the real world of health care systems.1 It is almost a decade since the issues of practicability were first raised in this Forum in 2009.2 Has progress been made? A PubMed scan (Figure 1) provides some comfort in the growth of applications of CAS thinking in health research. In this Forum, Wietmarschen, Wortelboer, and van der Greef3 provide a highly accessible vision for the future of complex adaptive systems and why they are needed. They re-articulate why a shift is needed from static silos of diagnoses and linear structures toward a more integrated biopsychosocial way of thinking about health, using systems thinking approaches. Moreover, in their far-sighted appraisal of Western lifestyle problems of obesity and sedentary behaviours, they demonstrate practical modelling techniques integrating molecular with cognitive and psychological metrics, and variables from different layers of human functioning. A systems dynamics software tool called Method to Analyse Relations between Variables using Enriched Loops was used to create the model during the group sessions. The resulting model contained various positive and negative feedback loops connecting multiple health domains, indicating non-linear mechanisms affecting processes that cross multiple health domains. These techniques have been applied to the analyses of individual trajectories in a clinical approach to obesity in Vogellanden-Centre for Rehabilitation, Zwolle, the Netherlands. System dynamics modelling (SD), is an interdisciplinary modelling method used for representing and understanding the behaviour of complex systems. An SD model consists of a series of stocks, which represent the total people receiving a type of service at a given time, interconnected through flows, which represent the movement of people from one stock to another over time. Participatory approaches align stakeholder understanding of the underlying causes of a problem and can achieve consensus for action. Advances in software are allowing the participatory model building approach to be extended to more sophisticated multimethod modelling that provides policy makers with more powerful tools to support the design of targeted, effective, and equitable policy responses for complex health problems.4 Cepoiu-Martin and Bischak5 utilized a system dynamics model of the Alberta Continuing Care System (ACCS), Canada, using stylized data to assist service planning. They explored policies of introducing staff/resident benchmarks in both supportive living and long-term care (LTC) in the background of predicted increases in the population of people with dementia and the provision of staffing benchmarks, The ACCS model developed, by going beyond linear cause-effect considerations, and allowed the exploration of the entire network of causal relationships between various components of the system. It provided evidence of applicability of SD simulation to analysis of the impact of adopting benchmarks related to the staff/resident ratios in the continuing care system in Alberta. The model provides a basis for future evaluations of interventions in the workforce development area, capturing all feedbacks that modify balance between staff supply and demand in the age care sector. The following three papers highlight practical applications at the clinical coal-face, albeit all are early stage studies. Bandini et al6 have successfully piloted a clinical tool for episode complexity in inpatient care on internal medical wards. Episode complexity represents the need for greater time and effort (compared with other patients and episodes) with respect to clinical assessment and treatment; relationships with the patients, caregivers, other specialists, and actors in the health care network; and information gathering and processing. A very interesting emergent finding from their study is that multimorbidity as measured by the Charlson comorbidity index was not a good predictor of episode complexity, as patients with multiple comorbidities often had simple hospital episodes while those without little comorbidity (low Charlson comorbidity score) had much more complex episodes with much less certain outcomes. The dynamics of those individual illness trajectories were not predicted by standard static disease based metrics nor supported by guidelines. Individual trajectories or journeys is a recurring theme in the developing CAS approaches in health care, representing the opportunity for responding to health status dynamics in a timely manner.7 This notion of intellectual work and time as markers of clinical complexity was also raised by Katerndahl et al in a previous analysis of medical work across clinical specialities.8 In complex systems, as the information in the input increases linearly, the complexity of the system increases exponentially. Thus, a simple rule is suggested, that clinical work complexity reflects the amount of care provided weighted by its diversity and variability. Primary care, because of its diversity and variability, scores highly on the amount of work demanded of its practitioners. In this theme, Fink et al9 describe the application of a clinical tool—Diagnostic Protocols (DP)—in a single handed practice over a 14-year period. Based on several decades of work by Braun and colleagues, DP represents a series of simple rules to reduce uncertainty in primary care presentations of serious conditions that may seem at first contact to be routine and non-serious. Here, we have the common theme of simple rules to identify courses of action related to simple and complex dynamics in patient trajectories over time in clinical care. At an organizational level, leadership is a crucial element of success, and its role is recognized as an important factor for achieving better performance and optimizing health improvements for patients. Horvat and Filipovic,10 using complexity leadership theory, identified three types of leadership and matched them to indicators of organizational maturity. Administrative leadership is grounded in traditional, bureaucratic notions of hierarchy, alignment, and control. Enabling leadership structures and enables conditions in which CAS can optimally address creative problem solving, adaptability, and learning. Adaptive leadership exemplifies a generative dynamic that underlies emergent change activities. Organizational maturity promotes organizational learning, enables effective and efficient management performance, reduces errors, and adapts to internal and external dynamics. Sustained success can be achieved by the effective management of the organization, through awareness of the organization's environment, by learning, and by the appropriate application of either improvements, or innovations, or both.11 Their survey of Serbian managers supported the hypothesis that administrative leadership had little influence on any maturity category of health care organizations. Adaptive and enabling leadership had greater association with managerial maturity. However, both adaptive and enabling leadership were also correlated with administrative leadership reflecting the entanglement of traditional structures and cultures of health care organizations with bottom-up informal emergent forces. A question that might be asked is: whether administrative leadership maintain the status quo by constraining emergence and self-organization to the detriment of organizational adaptability and learning? On an optimistic note, de Bock et al12 provide a case study of such bottom-up informal complex adaptive forces that successfully shifted clinical decision-making from professional silos into transdisciplinary inter-professional working. These shifts were driven by the internal and external tensions about caring for a longitudinal patient journey beyond technical rescue. The personal power of the nurses who were by the bedside, and their “bottom-up” understanding of the patient's needs, catalysed interdependent interactions and self-organization within the different professional groups. Care was thus adapted to patient-centred approaches beyond reductionist repair modes of thinking. This Forum highlights this emerging implementation of practical, but early stage CAS approaches to improving the outcomes of clinical care and health care more generally. To progress, a vision and practical goals for the shift needed from a conservative medical hierarchical disease focus, toward a more integrated biopsychosocial dynamic interactive ways of thinking about health.3 Tools to enable such implementation are needed, and four different practical approaches to deploy CAS theory in clinical care are highlighted that demonstrate innovation and adaptive thinking. They demonstrate a transition into enabling and adaptive leadership roles from the bottom-up. Yet the paper by Horvat and Filipovic provides some explanation about the slowness of the such transitions related to the challenges to complexity based leadership, with the ever-present dominant conservative health organizations. Administrative leadership models and cultures seeks to maintain the status quo and, for all intense and purposes, stand in the way of innovation and the emergence of “adapting and innovative” processes of care, system organization, and leadership. The International Organization for Standardization, a worldwide federation of national standards bodies (ISO member bodies), states that achievement of sustained success for any organization in a complex, demanding, and ever-changing environment requires enabling and adaptive leadership in health organizations.11 Health care will have to go through a huge cultural change to improve its organizational maturity with enabling and adaptive leadership. There is a need to successfully shape new ways of working and organizing in the evolution of health care. The role of adaptive leadership, as Ron Heifetz pointed out so eloquently, is not to solve problems, but rather to facilitate the necessary adaptive work of the people directly confronting the problems, often in the front-line in health care.13

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.