Developing and implementing new safe practices: voluntary adoption through statewide collaboratives

Process evaluation of a data-driven quality improvement program within a cluster randomised controlled trial to improve coronary heart disease management in Australian primary care

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates primary care practices' engagement with various features of a quality improvement (QI) intervention for patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) in four Australian states.

METHODS

Twenty-seven practices participated in the QI intervention from November 2019 -November 2020. A combination of surveys, semi-structured interviews and other materials within the QUality improvement in primary care to prevent hospitalisations and improve Effectiveness and efficiency of care for people Living with heart disease (QUEL) study were used in the process evaluation. Data were summarised using descriptive statistical and thematic analyses for 26 practices.

RESULTS

Sixty-four practice team members and Primary Health Networks staff provided feedback, and nine of the 63 participants participated in the interviews. Seventy-eight percent (40/54) were either general practitioners or practice managers. Although 69% of the practices self-reported improvement in their management of heart disease, engagement with the intervention varied. Forty-two percent (11/26) of the practices attended five or more learning workshops, 69% (18/26) used Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, and the median (Interquartile intervals) visits per practice to the online SharePoint site were 170 (146-252) visits. Qualitative data identified learning workshops and monthly feedback reports as the key features of the intervention.

CONCLUSION

Practice engagement in a multi-featured data-driven QI intervention was common, with learning workshops and monthly feedback reports identified as the most useful features. A better understanding of these features will help influence future implementation of similar interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) number ACTRN12619001790134.

How do healthcare providers use national audit data for improvement?

BACKGROUND

Substantial resources are invested by Health Departments worldwide in introducing National Clinical Audits (NCAs). Yet, there is variable evidence on the NCAs' effectiveness and little is known on factors underlying the successful use of NCAs to improve local practice. This study will focus on a single NCA (the National Audit of Inpatient Falls -NAIF 2017) to explore: (i) participants' perspectives on the NCA reports, local feedback characteristics and actions undertaken following the feedback underpinning the effective use of the NCA feedback to improve local practice; (ii) reported changes in local practice following the NCA feedback in England and Wales.

METHODS

Front-line staff perspectives were gathered through interviews. An inductive qualitative approach was used. Eighteen participants were purposefully sampled from 7 of the 85 participating hospitals in England and Wales. Analysis was guided by constant comparative techniques.

RESULTS

Regarding the NAIF annual report, interviewees valued performance benchmarking with other hospitals, the use of visual representations and the inclusion of case studies and recommendations. Participants stated that feedback should target front-line healthcare professionals, be straightforward and focused, and be delivered through an encouraging and honest discussion. Interviewees highlighted the value of using other relevant data sources alongside NAIF feedback and the importance of continuous data monitoring. Participants reported that engagement of front-line staff in the NAIF and following improvement activities was critical. Leadership, ownership, management support and communication at different organisational levels were perceived as enablers, while staffing level and turnover, and poor quality improvement (QI) skills, were perceived as barriers to improvement. Reported changes in practice included increased awareness and attention to patient safety issues and greater involvement of patients and staff in falls prevention activities.

CONCLUSIONS

There is scope to improve the use of NCAs by front-line staff. NCAs should not be seen as isolated interventions but should be fully embedded and integrated into the QI strategic and operational plans of NHS trusts. The use of NCAs could be optimised, but knowledge of them is poor and distributed unevenly across different disciplines. More research is needed to provide guidance on key elements to consider throughout the whole improvement process at different organisational levels.

Impact of externally facilitated continuous quality improvement cohorts on Advanced Access to support primary healthcare teams: protocol for a quasi-randomized cluster trial

BACKGROUND

Improving access to primary health care is among top priorities for many countries. Advanced Access (AA) is one of the most recommended models to improve timely access to care. Over the past 15 years, the AA model has been implemented in Canada, but the implementation of AA varies substantially among providers and clinics. Continuous quality improvement (CQI) approaches can be used to promote organizational change like AA implementation. While CQI fosters the adoption of evidence-based practices, knowledge gaps remain, about the mechanisms by which QI happens and the sustainability of the results. The general aim of the study is to analyse the implementation and effects of CQI cohorts on AA for primary care clinics. Specific objectives are: 1) Analyse the process of implementing CQI cohorts to support PHC clinics in their improvement of AA. 2) Document and compare structural organisational changes and processes of care with respect to AA within study groups (intervention and control). 3) Assess the effectiveness of CQI cohorts on AA outcomes. 4) Appreciate the sustainability of the intervention for AA processes, organisational changes and outcomes.

METHODS

Cluster-controlled trial allowing for a comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the proposed intervention 48 multidisciplinary primary care clinics will be recruited to participate. 24 Clinics from the intervention regions will receive the CQI intervention for 18 months including three activities carried out iteratively until the clinic's improvement objectives are achieved: 1) reflective sessions and problem priorisation; 2) plan-do-study-act cycles; and 3) group mentoring. Clinics located in the control regions will receive an audit-feedback report on access. Complementary qualitative and quantitative data reflecting the quintuple aim will be collected over a period of 36 months.

RESULTS

This research will contribute to filling the gap in the generalizability of CQI interventions and accelerate the spread of effective AA improvement strategies while strengthening local QI culture within clinics. This research will have a direct impact on patients' experiences of care.

CONCLUSION

This mixed-method approach offers a unique opportunity to contribute to the scientific literature on large-scale CQI cohorts to improve AA in primary care teams and to better understand the processes of CQI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials: NCT05715151.

Evaluating Quality in Adult Cardiac Surgery

National and institutional quality initiatives provide benchmarks for evaluating the effectiveness of medical care. However, the dramatic growth in the number and type of medical and organizational quality-improvement standards creates a challenge to identify and understand those that most accurately determine quality in cardiac surgery. It is important that surgeons have knowledge and insight into valid, useful indicators for comparison and improvement. We therefore reviewed the medical literature and have identified improvement initiatives focused on cardiac surgery. We discuss the benefits and drawbacks of existing methodologies, such as comprehensive regional and national databases that aid self-evaluation and feedback, volume-based standards as structural indicators, process measurements arising from evidence-based research, and risk-adjusted outcomes. In addition, we discuss the potential of newer methods, such as patient-reported outcomes and composite measurements that combine data from multiple sources.

Making change last? Exploring the value of sustainability approaches in healthcare: a scoping review

Background

Numerous models, tools and frameworks have been produced to improve the sustainability of evidence-based interventions. Due to the vast number available, choosing the most appropriate one is increasingly difficult for researchers and practitioners. To understand the value of such approaches, evidence warranting their use is needed. However, there is limited understanding of how sustainability approaches have been used and how they have impacted research or practice. This review aims to consolidate evidence on the application and impact of sustainability approaches in healthcare settings.

Methods

A systematic scoping review was designed to search for peer-reviewed publications detailing the use of sustainability approaches in practice. A 5-stage framework for scoping reviews directed the search strategy, and quality assessment was performed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Searches were performed through electronic citation tracking and snowballing of references. Articles were obtained through Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar. Six outcome variables for sustainability were explored to ascertain impact of approaches.

Results

This review includes 68 articles demonstrating the application of sustainability approaches in practice. Results show an increase in the use of sustainability approaches in peer-reviewed studies. Approaches have been applied across a range of healthcare settings, including primary, secondary, tertiary and community healthcare. Approaches are used for five main purposes, namely analysis, evaluation, guidance, assessment and planning. Results outline benefits (e.g. improved conceptualisation of sustainability constructs and improved ability to interpret sustainability data) and challenges (e.g. issues with approach constructs and difficulty in application) associated with using a sustainability approach in practice. Few articles (14/68) reported the sustainability outcome variables explored; therefore, the impact of approaches on sustainability remains unclear. Additional sustainability outcome variables reported in retrieved articles are discussed.

Conclusions

This review provides practitioners and researchers with a consolidated evidence base on sustainability approaches. Findings highlight the remaining gaps in the literature and emphasise the need for improved rigour and reporting of sustainability approaches in research studies. To guide future assessment and study of sustainability in healthcare settings an updated list of sustainability outcome variables is proposed.

Trial Registration

This review was registered on the PROSPERO database CRD 42016040081 in June 2016.

In-situ Simulation Use for Rapid Implementation and Process Improvement of COVID-19 Airway Management

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presents unique challenges to frontline healthcare workers. In order to safely care for patients new processes, such as a plan for the airway management of a patient with COVID-19, must be implemented and disseminated in a rapid fashion. The use of in-situ simulation has been used to assist in latent problem identification as part of a Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle. Additionally, simulation is an effective means for training teams to perform high-risk procedures before engaging in the actual procedure. This educational advance seeks to use and study in-situ simulation as a means to rapidly implement a process for airway management in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

Using an airway algorithm developed by the authors, we designed an in-situ simulation scenario to train physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists in best practices for airway management of patients with COVID-19. Physician participants were surveyed using a five-point Likert scale with regard to their comfort level with various aspects of the airway algorithm both before and after the simulation in a retrospective fashion. Additionally, we obtained feedback from all participants and used it to refine the airway algorithm.

RESULTS

Over a two-week period, 93 physicians participated in the simulation. We received 81 responses to the survey (87%), which showed that the average level of comfort with personal protective equipment procedures increased significantly from 2.94 (95% confidence interval, 2.71-3.17) to 4.36 (4.24-4.48), a difference of 1.42 (1.20-1.63, p < 0.001). There was a significant increase in average comfort level in understanding the physician role with scores increasing from 3.51 (3.26-3.77) to 4.55 (2.71-3.17), a difference of 1.04 (0.82-1.25, p < 0.001). There was also increased comfort in performing procedural tasks such as intubation, from 3.08 (2.80-3.35) to 4.38 (4.23-4.52) after the simulation, a difference of 1.30 points (1.06-1.54, p < 0.001). Feedback from the participants also led to refinement of the airway algorithm.

CONCLUSION

We successfully implemented a new airway management guideline for patients with suspected COVID-19. In-situ simulation is an essential tool for both dissemination and onboarding, as well as process improvement, in the context of an epidemic or pandemic.

Developing strategies for patient safety implementation: a national study in Iran

PURPOSE

Today, healthcare organizations focus mainly on development and implementation of patient safety strategic plan to improve quality and ensure safety of provided services. The purpose of this paper is to recommend potential strategies for successful implementation of patient safety program in Iranian hospitals based on a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT) analysis.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

In this qualitative study, key informant interviews and documentation review were done to identify strength and weakness points of Iranian hospitals in addition to opportunities and threats facing them in successful implementation of a patient safety program. Accordingly, the research team formulated main patient safety strategies and consequently prioritized them based on Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix (QSPM) matrix.

FINDINGS

The study recommended some of the potential patient safety strategies including provision of education for employees, promoting a safety culture in hospitals, managerial support and accountability, creating a safe and high-quality delivery environment, developing national legislations for hospital staff to comply with patient safety standards and developing a continuous monitoring system for quality improvement and patient safety activities to ensure the achievement of predetermined goals.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Developing a comprehensive and integrated strategic plan for patient safety based on accurate information about the health system's weaknesses, strengths, opportunities and threats and trying to implement the plan in accordance with patient safety principles can help hospitals achieve great success.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

Ministry of Health and Medical Education (MOHME) conducted a national study to recommend potential strategies for successful implementation of patient safety in Iranian hospitals based on a SWOT analysis and QSPM matrix.

Spread tools: a systematic review of components, uptake, and effectiveness of quality improvement toolkits

BACKGROUND

The objective was to conduct a systematic review of toolkit evaluations intended to spread interventions to improve healthcare quality. We aimed to determine the components, uptake, and effectiveness of publicly available toolkits.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and the Web of Science from 2005 to May 2018 for evaluations of publicly available toolkits, used a forward search of known toolkits, screened references, and contacted topic experts. Two independent reviewers screened publications for inclusion. One reviewer abstracted data and appraised the studies, checked by a second reviewer; reviewers resolved disagreements through discussion. Findings, summarized in comprehensive evidence tables and narrative synthesis addressed the uptake and utility, procedural and organizational outcomes, provider outcomes, and patient outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 77 studies evaluating 72 toolkits met inclusion criteria. Toolkits addressed a variety of quality improvement approaches and focused on clinical topics such as weight management, fall prevention, vaccination, hospital-acquired infections, pain management, and patient safety. Most toolkits included introductory and implementation material (e.g., research summaries) and healthcare provider tools (e.g., care plans), and two-thirds included material for patients (e.g., information leaflets). Pre-post studies were most common (55%); 10% were single hospital evaluations and the number of participating staff ranged from 17 to 704. Uptake data were limited and toolkit uptake was highly variable. Studies generally indicated high satisfaction with toolkits, but the perceived usefulness of individual tools varied. Across studies, 57% reported on adherence to clinical procedures and toolkit effects were positive. Provider data were reported in 40% of studies but were primarily self-reported changes. Only 29% reported patient data and, overall, results from robust study designs are missing from the evidence base.

CONCLUSIONS

The review documents publicly available toolkits and their components. Available uptake data are limited but indicate variability. High satisfaction with toolkits can be achieved but the usefulness of individual tools may vary. The existing evidence base on the effectiveness of toolkits remains limited. While emerging evidence indicates positive effects on clinical processes, more research on toolkit value and what affects it is needed, including linking toolkits to objective provider behavior measures and patient outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: PROSPERO 2014: CRD42014013930 .

Factors to consider in the introduction of huddles on clinical wards: perceptions of staff on the SAFE programme

Objectives

To explore paediatric hospital staff members' perceptions of the emerging benefits and challenges of the huddle, a new safety improvement initiative, as well as the barriers and facilitators to its implementation.

Design

A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews to explore staff perspectives and experiences.

Setting

Situation Awareness For Everyone (SAFE), a safety improvement programme, was implemented on a sample of National Health Service (NHS) paediatric wards from September 2014 to June 2016. Previously untested in England, the huddle was a central component of the programme.

Participants

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 76 staff members on four wards ~4 months after the start of the programme.

Results

A thematic analysis showed that staff perceived the huddle as helping to increase their awareness of important issues, improve communication, facilitate teamwork, and encourage a culture of increased efficiency, anticipation and planning on the ward. Challenges of the huddle included added pressure on staff time and workload, and the potential for junior nurses to be excluded from involvement, thus perhaps inadvertently reinforcing medical hierarchies. Staff also identified several barriers and facilitators to the huddle process, including the importance of senior nursing and medical staff leadership and managing staff time and capacity issues.

Conclusions

The findings point towards the potential efficacy of the huddle as a way of improving hospital staff members' working environments and clinical practice, with important implications for other sites seeking to implement such safety improvement initiatives.

Adherence to standardized assessments through a complexity-based model for categorizing rehabilitation©: design and implementation in an acute hospital

Background

The use of measurement instruments has become a major issue in physical therapy, but their use in daily practice is rare. The aim of this paper is to describe adherence to standardized assessments by physical therapists using a complexity-based model for categorizing rehabilitation (CMCR) at the Clínica Alemana of Santiago, an acute hospital in Chile.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study used 145,968 participant records that were stored in the inpatient database between July 2011 and December 2015. Adherence to the CMCR by 31 physical therapists working with intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU inpatients was assessed every quarter using the electronic patient records (EPR). This instrument (CMCR) linked clinical functional assessment to the degree of severity, thereby setting a score used to categorize patients as low, medium and high complexity. 96,400 instances of inpatient care where the physician recommended physical therapy were categorized. This was from a total of 145,968 instances of inpatient care recorded throughout the duration of the study (17 quarters). Trends in adherence were analyzed using a Prais-Winsten regression (a first-order autoregressive model). The trends were compared using a repeated measures ANOVA for mixed models with a significance level of 0.05. The use of the CMCR was included as one of the organization’s quality indicators associated with the hospital’s accreditation processes.

Results

Adherence increased by 1.48% every quarter (p = 0.005) for both ICU and non-ICU patients. On average, adherence with ICU patients was 16.98% greater than with non-ICU patients. Although adherence was always greater with ICU patients, the rate of increase with non-ICU patients was significantly greater: 1.62% (p = 0.007) vs. 1.28% (p = 0.003), respectively.

Conclusion

The CMCR facilitated adherence to standardized assessments by physical therapists working with ICU and non-ICU inpatients in an acute hospital, while linking this instrument to the organization’s quality management process proved to be an effective strategy for the duration of this study (17 quarters).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12911-018-0590-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Impact of Applying Quality Management Practices on Patient Centeredness in Jordanian Public Hospitals: Results of Predictive Modeling

Targeting the patient's needs and preferences has become an important contributor for improving care delivery, enhancing patient satisfaction, and achieving better clinical outcomes. This study aimed to examine the impact of applying quality management practices on patient centeredness within the context of health care accreditation and to explore the differences in the views of various health care workers regarding the attributes affecting patient-centered care. Our study followed a cross-sectional survey design wherein 4 Jordanian public hospitals were investigated several months after accreditation was obtained. Total 829 clinical/nonclinical hospital staff members consented for study participation. This sample was divided into 3 main occupational categories to represent the administrators, nurses, as well as doctors and other health professionals. Using a structural equation modeling, our results indicated that the predictors of patient-centered care for both administrators and those providing clinical care were participation in the accreditation process, leadership commitment to quality improvement, and measurement of quality improvement outcomes. In particular, perceiving the importance of the hospital's engagement in the accreditation process was shown to be relevant to the administrators (gamma = 0.96), nurses (gamma = 0.80), as well as to doctors and other health professionals (gamma = 0.71). However, the administrator staff (gamma = 0.31) was less likely to perceive the influence of measuring the quality improvement outcomes on the delivery of patient-centered care than nurses (gamma = 0.59) as well as doctors and other health care providers (gamma = 0.55). From the nurses' perspectives only, patient centeredness was found to be driven by building an institutional framework that supports quality assurance in hospital settings (gamma = 0.36). In conclusion, accreditation is a leading factor for delivering patient-centered care and should be on a hospital's agenda as a strategy for continuous quality improvement.

Perspectives on Implementing Quality Improvement Collaboratives Effectively: Qualitative Findings from the CHIPRA Quality Demonstration Grant Program

BACKGROUND

The most frequently pursued intervention in the $100 million, 18-state Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA) quality demonstration (2010-2015) was quality improvement collaboratives, which 12 states offered to more than 300 primary care practices. A study was conducted to identify which aspects of these collaboratives were viewed by organizers and participants as working well and which were not.

METHODS

Some 223 interviews were conducted in these states near the end of their collaboratives. Interview notes were coded and analyzed to identify trends.

RESULTS

Aspects of collaboratives that interviewees valued were aimed at attracting participation, maintaining engagement, or facilitating learning. To attract participants, interviewees recommended offering maintenance-of-certification credits, aligning content with existing financial incentives, hiring a knowledgeable collaborative organizer of the same medical specialty as participants, and having national experts speak at meetings. Positively viewed approaches for maintaining engagement included meeting one-on-one with practices to articulate participation expectations in advance, tying disbursal of stipends to meeting participation expectations, and soliciting feedback and making mid-course adjustments. To facilitate learning, interviewees liked learning from other practices, interactive exercises, practical handouts, and meeting face-to-face with new referral partners.

CONCLUSION

Prior studies have tended to focus on strategies to maintain engagement. The interviewees valued these features but also valued aspects of collaboratives that attracted participants in the first place and facilitated learning after participants were actively engaged. The findings suggest that a wider array of features may be important when developing or evaluating collaboratives. Collaborative organizers may benefit from incorporating the recommended collaborative features into their own collaboratives.

Domains associated with successful quality improvement in healthcare - a nationwide case study

Background

There is a distinct difference between what we know and what we do in healthcare: a gap that is impairing the quality of the care and increasing the costs. Quality improvement efforts have been made worldwide by learning collaboratives, based on recognized continual improvement theory with limited scientific evidence. The present study of 132 quality improvement projects in Norway explores the conditions for improvement from the perspectives of the frontline healthcare professionals, and evaluates the effectiveness of the continual improvement method.

Methods

An instrument with 25 questions was developed on prior focus group interviews with improvement project members who identified features that may promote or inhibit improvement. The questionnaire was sent to 189 improvement projects initiated by the Norwegian Medical Association, and responded by 70% (132) of the improvement teams. A sub study of their final reports by a validated instrument, made us able to identify the successful projects and compare their assessments with the assessments of the other projects. A factor analysis with Varimax rotation of the 25 questions identified five domains. A multivariate regression analysis was used to evaluate the association with successful quality improvements.

Results

Two of the five domains were associated with success: Measurement and Guidance (p = 0.011), and Professional environment (p = 0.015). The organizational leadership domain was not associated with successful quality improvements (p = 0.26).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that quality improvement projects with good guidance and focus on measurement for improvement have increased likelihood of success. The variables in these two domains are aligned with improvement theory and confirm the effectiveness of the continual improvement method provided by the learning collaborative. High performing professional environments successfully engaged in patient-centered quality improvement if they had access to: (a) knowledge of best practice provided by professional subject matter experts, (b) knowledge of current practice provided by simple measurement methods, assisted by (c) improvement knowledge experts who provided useful guidance on measurement, and made the team able to organize the improvement efforts well in spite of the difficult resource situation (time and personnel). Our findings may be used by healthcare organizations to develop effective infrastructure to support improvement and to create the conditions for making quality and safety improvement a part of everyone’s job.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2454-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A Quality Improvement Collaborative to Improve the Discharge Process for Hospitalized Children

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of a quality improvement collaborative on quality and efficiency of pediatric discharges.

METHODS

This was a multicenter quality improvement collaborative including 11 tertiary-care freestanding children's hospitals in the United States, conducted between November 1, 2011 and October 31, 2012. Sites selected interventions from a change package developed by an expert panel. Multiple plan-do-study-act cycles were conducted on patient populations selected by each site. Data on discharge-related care failures, family readiness for discharge, and 72-hour and 30-day readmissions were reported monthly by each site. Surveys of each site were also conducted to evaluate the use of various change strategies.

RESULTS

Most sites addressed discharge planning, quality of discharge instructions, and providing postdischarge support by phone. There was a significant decrease in discharge-related care failures, from 34% in the first project quarter to 21% at the end of the collaborative (P < .05). There was also a significant improvement in family perception of readiness for discharge, from 85% of families reporting the highest rating to 91% (P < .05). There was no improvement in unplanned 72-hour (0.7% vs 1.1%, P = .29) and slight worsening of the 30-day readmission rate (4.5% vs 6.3%, P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Institutions that participated in the collaborative had lower rates of discharge-related care failures and improved family readiness for discharge. There was no significant improvement in unplanned readmissions. More studies are needed to evaluate which interventions are most effective and to assess feasibility in non-children's hospital settings.

Development and Validation of the CPO Scale, a New Instrument for Evaluation of Health Care Improvement Efforts

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate an instrument for guidance and evaluation of quality and safety improvement efforts in health care.

CONTEXT

The instrument is based on the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle and the 3 fundamental improvement questions regarding aims, measurement, and change-making.

METHODS

An interdisciplinary team of improvement experts developed the Change Process and Outcome (CPO) scale. After studying the improvement literature, the scale was tested and refined on a sample of 5 projects. The CPO evaluation process and classification system was developed when evaluating 189 of the quality improvement projects of the Norwegian Medical Association by their final reports. The scale was validated by applying statistical testing to the evaluation results.

RESULTS

The final CPO scale consists of 13 process items and 7 outcome items. Interrater reliability ranged from 0.53 to 0.79, and test-retest reliability was 0.82. Factor analyses with Varimax rotation identified 2 significant process domains: Aims/change-making and Measurement/reporting, with Cronbach α values 0.88 and 0.95, respectively. The classification system produced 3 performance levels: successful, promising, and uncertain.

CONCLUSION

The CPO scale shows good internal consistency, reliability, and validity for evaluating the success of quality improvement initiatives.

Do quality improvement collaboratives' educational components match the dominant learning style preferences of the participants?

Background

Quality improvement collaboratives are used to improve healthcare by various organizations. Despite their popularity literature shows mixed results on their effectiveness. A quality improvement collaborative can be seen as a temporary learning organization in which knowledge about improvement themes and methods is exchanged. In this research we studied: Does the learning approach of a quality improvement collaborative match the learning styles preferences of the individual participants and how does that affect the learning process of participants?

Methods

This research used a mixed methods design combining a validated learning style questionnaire with data collected in the tradition of action research methodology to study two Dutch quality improvement collaboratives. The questionnaire is based on the learning style model of Ruijters and Simons, distinguishing five learning style preferences: Acquisition of knowledge, Apperception from others, Discovery of new insights, Exercising in fictitious situations and Participation with others.

Results

The most preferred learning styles of the participants were Discovery and Participation. The learning style Acquisition was moderately preferred and Apperception and Exercising were least preferred. The educational components of the quality improvement collaboratives studied (national conferences, half-day learning sessions, faculty site visits and use of an online tool) were predominantly associated with the learning styles Acquisition and Apperception. We observed a decrease in attendance to the learning activities and non-conformance with the standardized set goals and approaches.

Conclusions

We conclude that the participants’ satisfaction with the offered learning approach changed over time. The lacking match between these learning style preferences and the learning approach in the educational components of the quality improvement collaboratives studied might be the reason why the participants felt they did not gain new insights and therefore ceased their participation in the collaborative. This study provides guidance for future organisers and participants of quality improvement collaboratives about which learning approaches will best suit the participants and enhance improvement work.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0915-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The physician mentored implementation model: a promising quality improvement framework for health care change

Quality improvement (QI) efforts hold great promise for improving care delivery. However, hospitals often struggle with QI implementation and fail to sustain improvement in either process changes or patient outcomes. Physician mentored implementation (PMI) is a novel approach that promotes the success and sustainability of QI initiatives at hospitals. It leverages the expertise of external physician mentors who coach QI teams to implement interventions at their local hospitals. The PMI model includes five core components: (1) a hospital self-assessment tool, (2) a face-to-face training session including direct interaction with a physician mentor, (3) a guided continuous quality improvement and systems approach, (4) yearlong individual physician mentoring, and (5) a learning community supported by a resource center, listserv, and webinars. Mentors provide content and process expertise, rather than offering "one-size-fits-all" technical assistance that might not be sustained after the mentoring year ends. Mentors support and motivate QI teams throughout the planning and implementation phases of their interventions, help to engage hospital leadership, garner local physician buy-in, and address institutional barriers. Mentors also guide hospitals to identify opportunities for the adaptation and customization of original evidence-based models of care while ensuring the fidelity of those models. More than 350 hospitals have used the PMI model to implement successful national and statewide QI initiatives. Academic medical centers are charged with improving the health of patients and reengineering care delivery; thus, they serve as the ideal source for physician mentors and can act as leaders in implementing QI projects using the PMI model.

Scoping review of toolkits as a knowledge translation strategy in health

BACKGROUND

Significant resources are invested in the production of research knowledge with the ultimate objective of integrating research evidence into practice. Toolkits are becoming increasingly popular as a knowledge translation (KT) strategy for disseminating health information, to build awareness, inform, and change public and healthcare provider behavior. Toolkits communicate messages aimed at improving health and changing practice to diverse audiences, including healthcare practitioners, patients, community and health organizations, and policy makers. This scoping review explores the use of toolkits in health and healthcare.

METHODS

Using Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework, health-based toolkits were identified through a search of electronic databases and grey literature for relevant articles and toolkits published between 2004 and 2011. Two reviewers independently extracted data on toolkit topic, format, target audience, content, evidence underlying toolkit content, and evaluation of the toolkit as a KT strategy.

RESULTS

Among the 253 sources identified, 139 met initial inclusion criteria and 83 toolkits were included in the final sample. Fewer than half of the sources fully described the toolkit content and about 70% made some mention of the evidence underlying the content. Of 83 toolkits, only 31 (37%) had been evaluated at any level (27 toolkits were evaluated overall relative to their purpose or KT goal, and 4 toolkits evaluated the effectiveness of certain elements contained within them).

CONCLUSIONS

Toolkits used to disseminate health knowledge or support practice change often do not specify the evidence base from which they draw, and their effectiveness as a knowledge translation strategy is rarely assessed. To truly inform health and healthcare, toolkits should include comprehensive descriptions of their content, be explicit regarding content that is evidence-based, and include an evaluation of the their effectiveness as a KT strategy, addressing both clinical and implementation outcomes.

A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a review of the peer-reviewed literature since 2003 to catalogue reported methods of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness research and patient-centered outcomes research.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We worked with stakeholders before, during and after the review was conducted to: define the primary and key research questions; conduct the literature search; screen titles, abstracts and articles; abstract data from the articles; and analyze the data. The literature search yielded 2,062 abstracts. The review was conducted on 70 articles that reported on stakeholder engagement in individual research projects or programs.

FINDINGS

Reports of stakeholder engagement are highly variable in content and quality. We found frequent engagement with patients, modestly frequent engagement with clinicians, and infrequent engagement with stakeholders in other key decision-making groups across the healthcare system. Stakeholder engagement was more common in earlier (prioritization) than in later (implementation and dissemination) stages of research. The roles and activities of stakeholders were highly variable across research and program reports.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To improve on the quality and content of reporting, we developed a 7-Item Stakeholder Engagement Reporting Questionnaire. We recommend three directions for future research: 1) descriptive research on stakeholder-engagement in research; 2) evaluative research on the impact of stakeholder engagement on the relevance, transparency and adoption of research; and 3) development and validation of tools that can be used to support stakeholder engagement in future work.

A Conceptual Framework for Understanding and Reducing Overuse by Primary Care Providers

Primary care providers frequently recommend, administer, or prescribe health care services that are unlikely to benefit their patients. Yet little is known about how to reduce provider overuse behavior. In the absence of a theoretically grounded causal framework, it is difficult to predict the contexts under which different types of interventions to reduce provider overuse will succeed and under which they will fail. In this article, we present a framework based on the theory of planned behavior that is designed to guide overuse research and intervention development. We describe categories of primary care provider beliefs that lead to the formation of intentions to assess the appropriateness of services, and propose factors that may affect whether the presence of assessment intentions results in an appropriate recommendation. Interventions that have been commonly used to address provider overuse behavior are reviewed within the context of the framework.

Health districts as quality improvement collaboratives and multijurisdictional entities

CONTEXT

Local health departments are increasingly challenged to meet emerging health problems at the same time that they are being challenged with dwindling resources and the demands of accreditation.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the capacity of Multicounty health districts to serve as "Quality Improvement Collaboratives" and support local health departments to meet accreditation standards.

DESIGN

The study used an online survey tool and follow-up phone calls with key informants in health districts and county health departments in Georgia. Data collection was primarily based on an instrument to measure Quality Improvement Collaboratives that was adapted and tested for use with public health agencies in Georgia.

SETTING

The Georgia PBRN conducted this study of health districts and county health departments. The Georgia Department of Public Health supports 18 health districts and 159 county health departments (GA DPH, 2011). The health districts range in county composition from 1 to 16 counties in each district.

PARTICIPANTS

Key informants comprised district and county health department staff and county health department board members were identified by 13 participating health district offices.

RESULTS

Key opinion leaders from both the rural and nonrural counties agreed that the Districts were important for providing essential services and supporting quality improvement collaboration. Psychometric testing of the Quality Improvement Collaborative assessment public health instrument yielded high scores for validity and reliability.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Regionalization of local public health capacity is a critical emerging issue for public health accreditation and quality improvement. This study demonstrated the utility of regionalization across traditional local geopolitical boundaries.

Medication errors in a swiss cardiovascular surgery department: a cross-sectional study based on a novel medication error report method

The purpose of this study was (1) to determine frequency and type of medication errors (MEs), (2) to assess the number of MEs prevented by registered nurses, (3) to assess the consequences of ME for patients, and (4) to compare the number of MEs reported by a newly developed medication error self-reporting tool to the number reported by the traditional incident reporting system. We conducted a cross-sectional study on ME in the Cardiovascular Surgery Department of Bern University Hospital in Switzerland. Eligible registered nurses (n = 119) involving in the medication process were included. Data on ME were collected using an investigator-developed medication error self reporting tool (MESRT) that asked about the occurrence and characteristics of ME. Registered nurses were instructed to complete a MESRT at the end of each shift even if there was no ME. All MESRTs were completed anonymously. During the one-month study period, a total of 987 MESRTs were returned. Of the 987 completed MESRTs, 288 (29%) indicated that there had been an ME. Registered nurses reported preventing 49 (5%) MEs. Overall, eight (2.8%) MEs had patient consequences. The high response rate suggests that this new method may be a very effective approach to detect, report, and describe ME in hospitals.

Clinical errors and medical negligence

This paper discusses the definition, nature and origins of clinical errors including their prevention. The relationship between clinical errors and medical negligence is examined as are the characteristics of litigants and events that are the source of litigation. The pattern of malpractice claims in different specialties and settings is examined. Among hospitalized patients worldwide, 3-16% suffer injury as a result of medical intervention, the most common being the adverse effects of drugs. The frequency of adverse drug effects appears superficially to be higher in intensive care units and emergency departments but once rates have been corrected for volume of patients, comorbidity of conditions and number of drugs prescribed, the difference is not significant. It is concluded that probably no more than 1 in 7 adverse events in medicine result in a malpractice claim and the factors that predict that a patient will resort to litigation include a prior poor relationship with the clinician and the feeling that the patient is not being kept informed. Methods for preventing clinical errors are still in their infancy. The most promising include new technologies such as electronic prescribing systems, diagnostic and clinical decision-making aids and error-resistant systems.

[How to write, how to implement and how to evaluate a practice guideline in order to improve quality of care?]

Initiatives of clinical practices improvement have been gradually developing in France for 20 years. Nevertheless, effective implementation of change is still difficult for numerous reasons. The use of clinical practices guidelines is one of the different ways of improvement. It is however necessary to adapt these national guidelines to the specificities of the hospital and the team, to ensure implementation and appropriation by the professionals. These recommendations are thus translated into applicable and concrete standard operating procedures. These documents have to be built by and for the concerned professionals. They are also communication and training tools, precise, directive, uniform in terms of presentation and attractive visually. Once drafted, they have to be distributed widely to the professionals to facilitate implementation. The simple distribution of the recommendations is insufficient to modify the clinical practices and require association of several methods of promotion for an optimal appropriation. How then to make sure of their effective use? Practices evaluation is one of the steps of continuous professional development, including continuous training and analysis of clinical practices by using methods promoted by the "Haute Autorité de santé". One of them is the clinical audit; use of method assessing non-pertinent treatment is interesting too. Analysis of the non-conformities and gaps between theory and practice allows identifying various possible causes (professional, institutional, organizational or personal) in order to implement corrective action plans, in a logic of continuous improvement.

Performance improvement and implementation science: infection prevention competencies for current and future role development

The Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc, developed its first model of infection preventionist (IP) competency in 2011. The model is based on the principles of patient safety, professional and practice standards, and core competencies identified through research conducted by the Certification Board of Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. In addition, the model highlights 4 domains that are predicted to be key areas for future competency development. Performance improvement (PI) and implementation represent 1 of the 4 forward-focused domains. Concurrently, the inclusion of implementation science (IS) in the competency model is consistent with the research goals established by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc, in its 2020 strategic plan. This article explains the importance of PI and IS and describes their relevance to the current and future IP role development. Significant challenges such as role delineation and compression are discussed. The need for the IP to acquire new competencies at integrating, as well as differentiating, PI and IS are explored in terms of emerging issues and trends.

Clinical audit and quality improvement - time for a rethink?

RATIONALE AND AIM

Evidence of the benefits of clinical audit to patient care is limited, despite its longevity. Additionally, numerous attitudinal, professional and organizational barriers impede its effectiveness. Yet, audit remains a favoured quality improvement (QI) policy lever. Growing interest in QI techniques suggest it is timely to re-examine audit. Clinical audit advisors assist health care teams, so hold unique cross-cutting perspectives on the strategic and practical application of audit in NHS organizations. We aimed to explore their views and experiences of their role in supporting health care teams in the audit process.

METHOD

Qualitative study using semi-structured and focus group interviews. Participants were purposively sampled (n = 21) across health sectors in two large Scottish NHS Boards. Interviews were audio-taped, transcribed and a thematic analysis performed.

RESULTS

Work pressure and lack of protected time were cited as audit barriers, but these hide other reasons for non-engagement. Different professions experience varying opportunities to participate. Doctors have more opportunities and may dominate or frustrate the process. Audit is perceived as a time-consuming, additional chore and a managerially driven exercise with no associated professional rewards. Management failure to support and resource changes fuels low motivation and disillusionment. Audit is regarded as a 'political' tool stifled by inter-professional differences and contextual constraints.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings echo previous studies. We found limited evidence that audit as presently defined and used is meeting policy makers' aspirations. The quality and safety improvement focus is shifting towards 'alternative' systems-based QI methods, but research to suggest that these will be any more impactful is also lacking. Additionally, identified professional, educational and organizational barriers still need to be overcome. A debate on how best to overcome the limitations of audit and its place alongside other approaches to QI is necessary.

Evaluation of a VHA collaborative to improve follow-up after a positive colorectal cancer screening test

BACKGROUND

In 2005, the Veterans Health Administration initiated a yearlong Colorectal Cancer Care Collaborative (C4) to improve timely follow-up after positive fecal occult blood tests.

METHODS

Twenty-one facilities formed local quality improvement (QI) teams. Teams received QI training, created process flow maps, implemented process changes, and shared learning through 2 face-to-face meetings, conference calls, and a discussion board. We evaluated pre-post change in the timeliness of follow-up among C4 facilities and 3 control facilities. Outcome measures included the proportion of patients receiving a follow-up colonoscopy within 1 year, the proportion receiving 60-day follow-up (the focus of C4 teams), and average days to colonoscopy. Survey data from C4 team members was analyzed to identify predictors of facility-level improvement.

RESULTS

Both C4 and control facilities improved on 1-year follow-up (10% and 9% increases, respectively, both P's<0.001). There was a statistically significant increase in the proportion receiving 60-day follow-up among C4 facilities (27% pre-C4 vs. 39% post-C4, P=0.008) but a nonsignificant decrease among control facilities (45% pre-C4 vs. 29% post-C4, P=0.14). Average days to colonoscopy decreased significantly among C4 facilities (129 pre-C4 vs. 103 post-C4, P=0.004) but increased significantly among control facilities (81 pre-C4 vs. 103 post-C4, P=0.04). Teams with the most improvement established clear roles/goals, had previous QI training, made more use of QI tools, and incorporated primary care education into their improvement work.

CONCLUSIONS

A Veterans Health Administration improvement collaborative modestly decreased time to colonoscopy after a positive colorectal cancer screening test but significant room for improvement remains and benefits of participation were not realized by all facilities.

Legacy Health's 'Big Aims' initiative to improve patient safety reduced rates of infection and mortality among patients

An uncomfortable truth about US health care is that medical harm and needless deaths continue to occur, even after a decade of concentrated efforts to eliminate them. However, some hospital systems are managing to improve patient safety. Legacy Health, a system with six hospitals in the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area, engaged its entire workforce in an initiative to reduce rates of infection and mortality. Legacy staff used bundles of best practices to prevent four common health care-associated infections; reviewed deaths and revised procedures based on the findings; and included staff from different disciplines in daily medical rounds. The results were a 44.6 percent reduction in infections and a 13.5 percent reduction in mortality, as well as annual savings of more than $6.8 million for each of the first two years from the avoided costs of treating health care-associated infections. Fewer patients suffered, died, or incurred daunting copayments for hospital care. These results demonstrate that health care systems can greatly improve quality and safety and lower costs when leaders as well as front-line clinicians and staff are highly involved in improvement efforts.

A successful, voluntary, multicomponent statewide effort to reduce health care-associated infections

Health care-associated infections (HAIs) increase morbidity, mortality, and hospital costs. Multiple organizations have worked independently to reduce HAIs. Regional collaborative efforts to reduce HAIs have been less common but may be particularly effective. The authors describe a statewide multicomponent approach implemented by the Iowa Healthcare Collaborative (IHC) to reduce HAIs. IHC's initiatives helped providers improve patient care by becoming engaged in specific projects, improving communication, sharing data, and implementing best practices. Other states could use this approach as a model to engage clinicians in patient safety initiatives and thereby accelerate the rate at which clinical care and health care outcomes are improved.

Understanding organisational development, sustainability, and diffusion of innovations within hospitals participating in a multilevel quality collaborative

Background

Between 2004 and 2008, 24 Dutch hospitals participated in a two-year multilevel quality collaborative (MQC) comprised of (a) a leadership programme for hospital executives, (b) six quality-improvement collaboratives (QICs) for healthcare professionals and other staff, and (c) an internal programme organisation to help senior management monitor and coordinate team progress. The MQC aimed to stimulate the development of quality-management systems and the spread of methods to improve patient safety and logistics. The objective of this study is to describe how the first group of eight MQC hospitals sustained and disseminated improvements made and the quality methods used.

Methods

The approach followed by the hospitals was described using interview and questionnaire data gathered from eight programme coordinators.

Results

MQC hospitals followed a systematic strategy of diffusion and sustainability. Hospital quality-management systems are further developed according to a model linking plan-do-study-act cycles at the unit and hospital level. The model involves quality norms based on realised successes, performance agreements with unit heads, organisational support, monitoring, and quarterly accountability reports.

Conclusions

It is concluded from this study that the MQC contributed to organisational development and dissemination within participating hospitals. Organisational learning effects were demonstrated. System changes affect the context factors in the theory of organisational readiness: organisational culture, policies and procedures, past experience, organisational resources, and organisational structure. Programme coordinator responses indicate that these factors are utilised to manage spread and sustainability. Further research is needed to assess long-term effects.

Improving reliability of clinical care practices for ventilated patients in the context of a patient safety improvement initiative

AIMS

To investigate perceived factors relating to the reliable application of four clinical care practices targeting ventilator-associated pneumonias, in the context of a patient safety improvement initiative called the Safer Patients Initiative (SPI).

METHODS

Qualitative case study. Seventeen semi-structured individual interviews with clinical operational leads, programme coordinators and executive managers who were involved in the implementation of the programme's critical care work stream during its pilot phase. The interviews had a focus on perceived aspects pertaining to the reliable implementation of the four clinical practices, promoted by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement as the 'ventilator care bundle'.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis of the verbatim transcripts revealed three overarching themes experienced by the participants during the implementation of the clinical practices included in the SPI ventilator care bundle: the power of measurement, feedback to peers and experts and improvement tools specific to SPI. Consistent measurement of compliance with the four elements of the bundle and outcomes made the staff realize that their engagement in previous improvement work for ventilated patients was inadequate and motivated them to apply the introduced clinical practices more reliably. Feedback to experts and peers of staff compliance with the four clinical practices and outcome improvement was perceived as a very influential aspect of SPI. Small tests of change (Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles), teaching sessions and daily goal sheets were quoted as particularly useful tools throughout the implementation of the four clinical care practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Future initiatives that aim to improve the adherence of clinical staff with clinical practice guidelines in intensive care units could benefit from integrating in their methodology consistent measurement and feedback practices of both process compliance and outcome data.

Applying the quality improvement collaborative method to process redesign: a multiple case study

Background

Despite the widespread use of quality improvement collaboratives (QICs), evidence underlying this method is limited. A QIC is a method for testing and implementing evidence-based changes quickly across organisations. To extend the knowledge about conditions under which QICs can be used, we explored in this study the applicability of the QIC method for process redesign.

Methods

We evaluated a Dutch process redesign collaborative of seventeen project teams using a multiple case study design. The goals of this collaborative were to reduce the time between the first visit to the outpatient's clinic and the start of treatment and to reduce the in-hospital length of stay by 30% for involved patient groups. Data were gathered using qualitative methods, such as document analysis, questionnaires, semi-structured interviews and participation in collaborative meetings.

Results

Application of the QIC method to process redesign proved to be difficult. First, project teams did not use the provided standard change ideas, because of their need for customised solutions that fitted with context-specific causes of waiting times and delays. Second, project teams were not capable of testing change ideas within short time frames due to: the need for tailoring changes ideas and the complexity of aligning interests of involved departments; small volumes of involved patient groups; and inadequate information and communication technology (ICT) support. Third, project teams did not experience peer stimulus because they saw few similarities between their projects, rarely shared experiences, and did not demonstrate competitive behaviour. Besides, a number of project teams reported that organisational and external change agent support was limited.

Conclusions

This study showed that the perceived need for tailoring standard change ideas to local contexts and the complexity of aligning interests of involved departments hampered the use of the QIC method for process redesign. We cannot determine whether the QIC method would have been appropriate for process redesign. Peer stimulus was non-optimal as a result of the selection process for participation of project teams by the external change agent. In conclusion, project teams felt that necessary preconditions for successful use of the QIC method were lacking.

Barriers to change hindering quality improvement: the reality of emergency care

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate physicians' and nurses' perspectives and prerequisites for quality improvement in the emergency department based on results from a previous patient survey.

METHOD

The study used an explorative design with a qualitative approach and was conducted at the main emergency department of a Swedish university hospital. Interviews were conducted with 5 focus groups. In total, the groups comprised 22 respondents.

RESULTS

The respondents suggested goals and quality improvements, such as more patient-centered care, reduced waiting times, and better pain management. However, barriers to quality improvement also were identified and represented 3 themes: the patient is looked upon as an object or a problem; the physicians and nurses belong to different organizational cultures; and the hospital's organization hinders the optimal flow of patients and improvements to quality.

DISCUSSION

When assigning priority to the topic areas, most of the focus groups ranked "information, respect, and empathy" as most important to improve. Adequate information, proper care, and treatment within a reasonable time in the emergency department were cited as the goals for patient care, but the health care professionals perceived barriers to change in the hospital culture and organization. To ensure quality care and patient safety, these barriers should be addressed by leaders on all levels in the organization, including the hospital board. Health care professionals' perspectives of quality of care are valuable and should be included in quality improvement work.

Sociological refigurations of patient safety; ontologies of improvement and 'acting with' quality collaboratives in healthcare

The increasing focus on patient safety in the field of health policy is accompanied by research programs that articulate the role of the social sciences as one of contributing to enhancing safety in healthcare. Through these programs, new approaches to studying safety are facing a narrow definition of 'usefulness' in which researchers are to discover the factors that support or hamper the implementation of existing policy agendas. This is unfortunate since such claims for useful involvement in predefined policy agendas may undo one of the strongest assets of good social science research: the capacity to complexify the taken-for-granted conceptualizations of the object of study. As an alternative to this definition of 'usefulness', this article proposes a focus on multiple ontologies in the making when studying patient safety. Through such a focus, the role of social scientists becomes the involvement in refiguring the problem space of patient safety, the relations between research subjects and objects, and the existing policy agendas. This role gives medical sociologists the opportunity to focus on the question of which practices of 'effective care' are being enacted through different approaches for dealing with patient safety and what their consequences are for the care practices under study. In order to explore these questions, this article draws on empirical material from an ongoing evaluation of a large quality improvement collaborative for the care sectors in the Netherlands. It addresses how issues like 'effectiveness' and 'client participation' are at present articulated in this collaborative and shows that alternative figurations of these notions dissolve many 'implementation problems' presently experienced. Further it analyzes how such a focus of medical sociology on multiple ontologies engenders new potential for exploring particular spaces for 'acting with' quality improvement agents.

Quality requirements for cross-border care in Europe: a qualitative study of patients', professionals' and healthcare financiers' views

BACKGROUND

In the past decade the issue of patient mobility has emerged on the European health policy agenda. Although the volume of patients crossing borders to obtain healthcare is low, it is increasing continuously and, due to its legal, financial and medical implications, has generated considerable interest among health policy and other decision makers. However, there is little information available on the safety and patient-centredness of cross-border care and neither governments nor citizens have an explicit basis for comparing healthcare delivery in Europe.

METHODS

This study investigated the viewpoints of patients, professionals and healthcare financiers on the safety and patient-centredness of cross-border care. Qualitative interviews were carried out during 2005 and early 2006 with 40 patients, 30 professionals (doctors, nurses and managers) and 3 healthcare-financing bodies.

RESULTS

Although cross-border care has become a common issue in many European countries, there remain uncertainties on the side of each of the parties addressed--patients, professionals and financiers--with regard to the provision of cross-border care. One of the most striking results of this project is the current lack of research on systematic knowledge on the quality of cross-border care.

CONCLUSION

Many of the issues identified through this research may have a potential impact on the quality and safety of cross-border care and will support further investigation and help shape the health policy agenda on patients crossing borders in European Union countries.

[Leadership in the hospital]

Current concepts in leadership and governance on the level of supervisory board, management and departments are often considered as insufficient to cope with the profound structural change which actually takes place in the German health care system. While vertical and horizontal disconnecting is typical of the professional bureaucracy of hospitals, transition from functional to divisional structure further increases this risk. Accordingly, medical experts are oriented towards their professional peers and patient care on the one side; on the other side the management gets isolated and looses operative and strategic control. Several studies provide evidence for the relevance of role models to serve as agents of change, which are now developed into the concept of "Clinical Governance": evidence-based medicine, guidelines, continuous quality improvement, safety culture, resource accountability and organisational learning. The present situation makes it necessary to extend this conception, which focuses on the departmental level in an organisation with divisional features, to one of "Clinical Corporate Governance". This term, which also includes supervisory structures and the management board and is relevant for the total hospital and company, respectively, is based on the corporate governance concept. Inside the hospital, the management and the heads of the departments have to agree that (1) experts really need to be integrated into the decision process, and that (2) the outcomes of the entire hospital have to be regarded as equal or superior to the aims of a single department. The public image of the hospital should be one of a strong and reliable partner in health care and health care business on a local, regional and national level. Members of the supervisory board should clearly put corporate aspects above political and other implications and pay attention to personal independence from the leaders of the medical departments.

Perceptions of the impact of a large-scale collaborative improvement programme: experience in the UK Safer Patients Initiative

RATIONALE AND AIMS

In several countries, collaborative improvement programmes involving multiple health care organizations have been developed to address the issue of patient safety and reliability of care at an organization-wide level. In the UK, the Health Foundation's Safer Patients Initiative (SPI) was developed to achieve breakthrough improvement in the quality and safety of care in 24 acute hospital Trusts between 2004 and 2008. Research evidence for the effectiveness of programmes of this type and the mechanisms by which positive outcomes are achieved remains limited. We report a multi-method preliminary study based upon phase 1 of SPI to understand participant's perceptions of the local impact of the programme and to form the basis of future research in this area.

METHODS

Data were collected on the perceived local impact of SPI on a range of clinical, organizational and social dimensions relating to care quality and safety. Data were collected retrospectively from local SPI programme improvement teams using semi-structured interviews and surveys. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed, and the results synthesized under common themes and frameworks.

RESULTS

Specific dimensions of care systems commonly considered to be affected by SPI, included culture, strategic priority, organizational capability and clinical care delivery. Survey data revealed the perceived importance for success of a range of programme components: quality improvement methodology, learning sessions and programme faculty support, along with predefined clinical practice changes. Safety climate and capability dimensions rated as most sensitive to the effects of the SPI programme related to multi-professional engagement and communication, the degree of routine monitoring of care processes and the capacity to evaluate the impact of changes to clinical work systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Study findings support the view that programmes such as SPI have considerable impact upon the cultural, inter-professional, strategic and organizational aspects of care delivery, in addition to clinical working practices. The specific implications for understanding the effects of complex organization-level interventions and future research design are discussed.

The seventh competency

BACKGROUND

Disclosure of error is gaining acceptance as an ethical imperative in health care. Despite this, residency training programs do not commonly address this in their curricula, and competence in the identification and disclosure of adverse events and medical error is typically not assessed.

SUMMARY

Although aspects of the identification, disclosure, and apology for medical error can be subsumed under existing competencies, the skills required in this area are in many ways fundamentally different from anything else physicians are taught.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose that the identification of medical error recognition and disclosure be recognized as a seventh core competency and we suggest that residency program directors be invited to develop innovative approaches to teaching and assessing competence in this area. This will benefit training programs, residents, and ultimately society and the patients that we serve.

Quality improvement in maternity care: promising approaches from the medical and public health perspectives

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Quality-improvement activities affect every obstetrician and every birthing service in the country. This review will serve to introduce the obstetric practitioner to the latest evidence of effective quality-improvement methods and provide an understanding of the different roles of the various organizations involved.

RECENT FINDINGS

Maternity quality improvement is an interrelated process with quality-improvement activities that occur at the hospital (e.g. protocols, checklists, drills, simulations, data collection and feedback and rapid-cycle quality-improvement projects), quality-improvement activities that occur at the level of a multihospital system or region (e.g. development of materials to support the hospital, development of quality-improvement leaders, provide pressure for change, benchmark outcomes), quality-improvement activities that occur within public agencies (e.g. public education campaigns) and still others that occur at governmental levels (e.g. selecting measures and targets, setting incentives and regulations, collecting administrative data). Quality collaboratives are relatively new, but can serve to jumpstart and coordinate the quality-improvement process among all the institutions involved.

SUMMARY

This review helps hospital leaders identify the quality-improvement activities that will be most effective for their needs.

Learning and improving in quality improvement collaboratives: which collaborative features do participants value most?

OBJECTIVE

To understand participants' views on the relative helpfulness of various features of collaboratives, why each feature was helpful and which features the most successful participants viewed as most central to their success.

DATA SOURCES

Primary data collected from 53 teams in four 2004-2005 Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) Breakthrough Series collaboratives; secondary data from IHI and demographic sources.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional analyses were conducted to assess participants' views of 12 features, and the relationship between their views and performance improvement.

DATA COLLECTION METHODS

Participants' views on features were obtained via self-administered surveys and semi-structured telephone interviews. Performance improvement data were obtained from IHI and demographic data from secondary sources.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Participants viewed six features as most helpful for advancing their improvement efforts overall and knowledge acquisition in particular: collaborative faculty, solicitation of their staff's ideas, change package, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, Learning Session interactions, and collaborative extranet. These features also provided participants with motivation, social support, and project management skills. Features enabling interorganizational learning were rated higher by teams whose organizations improved significantly than by other teams.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings identify features of collaborative design and implementation that participants view as most helpful and highlight the importance of interorganizational features, at least for those organizations that most improve.

Improving the health care work environment: a sociotechnical systems approach

This issue examines findings on key elements of the hospital environment, identifies risks to safety and quality, and proposes operational and policy solutions.