ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Operating in recurrent crises: a qualitative study of decision-making and unintended consequences in a peripheral hospital.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: During crises, decision-makers often operate under uncertainty, relying on limited evidence and intuition, increasing the risk of unintended consequences. In Israel, hospitals have recently faced back-to-back crises: the COVID pandemic and the war following October 7th 2023. Objective: This study aimed to explore hospitals' decision-making processes during crises and how managing one crisis influenced responses to subsequent crises. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study guided by a modified version of the World Health Organization's six building blocks framework, and interviewed 18 key decision-makers in a peripheral hospital. Deductive framework-informed thematic analysis compared decision-making during routine operations versus crises. Results: We found that decision-making processes narrowed primarily to managing COVID-19, with heightened oversight of COVID wards and increased interactions with external factors such as the Ministry of Health. Although mechanisms to minimize unintended consequences existed during routine times, non-COVID areas were often deprioritized during the crisis, increasing the risk of unintended consequences. Notably, the pandemic served as a catalyst for organizational learning, strengthening staff preparedness and improving operational and logistical capabilities during the subsequent war. Furthermore, interactions established during the pandemic contributed to streamlined wartime decision-making. Conclusion: Decision makers should capitalize internal and external collaborations developed during crises to sustain them during routine times for better preparedness. Moreover, they should mitigate the risk of unintended consequences in non-crisis-related services, which are particularly vulnerable during emergencies. It could be achieved by regular and systematic real-time evaluation checkpoints in place. Future multi-center studies are needed to assess the transferability of these findings across diverse settings and crisis contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.