Improvement Science: conceptual and theoretical foundations for its application to healthcare quality improvement

Motivational drivers for health professionals in a large quality improvement collaborative project in Brazil: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The success of collaborative quality improvement (QI) projects in healthcare depends on the context and engagement of health teams; however, the factors that modulate teams' motivation to participate in these projects are still unclear. The objective of the current study was to explore the barriers to and facilitators of motivation; the perspective was health professionals in a large project aiming to implement evidence-based infection prevention practices in intensive care units of Brazilian hospitals.

METHODS

This qualitative study was based on content analysis of semistructured in-depth interviews held with health professionals who participated in a collaborative QI project named "Improving patient safety on a large scale in Brazil". In accordance with the principle of saturation, we selected a final sample of 12 hospitals located throughout the five regions of Brazil that have implemented QI; then, we conducted videoconference interviews with 28 health professionals from those hospitals. We encoded the interview data with NVivo software, and the interrelations among the data were assessed with the COM-B model.

RESULTS

The key barriers identified were belief that improvement increases workload, lack of knowledge about quality improvement, resistance to change, minimal involvement of physicians, lack of supplies, lack support from senior managers and work overload. The primary driver of motivation was tangible outcomes, as evidenced by a decrease in infections. Additionally, factors such as the active participation of senior managers, teamwork, learning in practice and understanding the reason for changes played significant roles in fostering motivation.

CONCLUSION

The motivation of health professionals to participate in collaborative QI projects is driven by a variety of barriers and facilitators. The interactions between the senior manager, quality improvement teams, and healthcare professionals generate attitudes that modulate motivation. Thus, these aspects should be considered during the implementation of such projects. Future research could explore the cost-effectiveness of motivational approaches.

Improvement project to reduce surgical site infections: a retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Surgical site infections are one of the main problems related to health care. In Brazil, they are responsible for 14 to 16% of infections related to health care. This study sought to analyze the effect of implementing a package of measures to reduce surgical site infections (SSI) in heart surgeries, kidney transplants and herniorrhaphies and to evaluate adherence to the safe surgery checklist in a university hospital.

METHODS

this is a retrospective cohort study with data collection in a time series for the period from 2018 to 2020.

RESULTS

we analyzed 222 medical records referring to the surgeries under study performed in the year 2020, in which data were collected from the patients and the care package prevention measures. SSI data and adherence to the safe surgery checklist were analyzed in the years 2018, 2019 and 2020, totaling 268, 300 and 222 procedures analyzed, respectively.

CONCLUSION

the study showed a significant reduction in the SSI rate with greater adherence to the protocol, which was not maintained and was influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the sustainability of this action represents a challenge to be overcome, in order to establish a safer environment for the patient and a better quality of service.

Patient safety culture in primary health care: Medical office survey on patient safety culture in a Brazilian family health strategy setting

Study objectives

To assess the patient safety culture in Primary Health Care (PHC) setting after the transition to the Family Health Strategy (FHS) model in a Brazilian metropolitan area and compare the results between the categories of health care professionals.

Methods

A cross-sectional study including 246 workers from primary health care services in Federal District, Brazil. Data collection took place from October to December 2019 through the Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture (MOSPSC) application. Patient safety culture was considered positive when the score was above 60%. For comparisons between the categories of health care professionals’, the ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis test were used for composite percent positive scores, and Pearson’s chi-square or Fishers exact test for frequency and percentage of positive responses.

Results

The overall MOSPSC composite percent positive score was 49.9%. Among the 12 dimensions, only three showed a positive patient safety culture: Teamwork (73.1%), Organizational learning (62.9%), and Patient care tracking/follow-up (60.1%). The percentage of positive responses on overall quality assessment (78.1%) and overall patient safety assessment (78.0%) showed a positive evaluation. There was no significant difference in the composite percent positive score of overall MOSPSC (p = 0.135) and the percentage of positive responses on overall patient safety assessment (p = 0.156) between the categories of health care professionals. Overall quality assessment showed a significant difference between job roles (p < 0.001), in which nursing /health care technicians showed a significantly lower score than other job roles.

Conclusion

The patient safety culture assessment showed a weakness in the patient safety in the PHC services. The MOSPSC and nine of its dimensions presented a negative safety culture assessment, regardless of the high scores in the overall patient safety and quality assessments.

Bridging the Silos: A Comparative Analysis of Implementation Science and Improvement Science

Background

Implementation science and improvement science have similar goals of improving health care services for better patient and population outcomes, yet historically there has been limited exchange between the two fields. Implementation science was born out of the recognition that research findings and effective practices should be more systematically disseminated and applied in various settings to achieve improved health and welfare of populations. Improvement science has grown out of the wider quality improvement movement, but a fundamental difference between quality improvement and improvement science is that the former generates knowledge for local improvement, whereas the latter is aimed at producing generalizable scientific knowledge.

Objectives

The first objective of this paper is to characterise and contrast implementation science and improvement science. The second objective, building on the first, is to highlight aspects of improvement science that potentially could inform implementation science and vice versa.

Methods

We used a critical literature review approach. Search methods included systematic literature searches in PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO until October 2021; reviewing references in identified articles and books; and the authors' own cross-disciplinary knowledge of key literature.

Findings

The comparative analysis of the fields of implementation science and improvement science centred on six categories: (1) influences; (2) ontology, epistemology and methodology; (3) identified problem; (4) potential solutions; (5) analytical tools; and (6) knowledge production and use. The two fields have different origins and draw mostly on different sources of knowledge, but they have a shared goal of using scientific methods to understand and explain how health care services can be improved for their users. Both describe problems in terms of a gap or chasm between current and optimal care delivery and consider similar strategies to address the problems. Both apply a range of analytical tools to analyse problems and facilitate appropriate solutions.

Conclusions

Implementation science and improvement science have similar endpoints but different starting points and academic perspectives. To bridge the silos between the fields, increased collaboration between implementation and improvement scholars will help to clarify the differences and connections between the science and practice of improvement, to expand scientific application of quality improvement tools, to further address contextual influences on implementation and improvement efforts, and to share and use theory to support strategy development, delivery and evaluation.

Improvement of quality of care for gestational syphilis in the municipality of Rio de Janeiro

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the effect of a multifaceted intervention in the care of pregnant women with syphilis in primary health care.

METHODS

This is a quality improvement project performed in 26 basic care units in the municipality of Rio de Janeiro, between January and December 2017. It has a quasi-experimental mixed design, with previous, later and time series analyses. We evaluated the care provided to all pregnant women with syphilis whose prenatal care that ended during the studied period, using ten quality criteria and one indicator. The intervention was multifaceted, covering permanent education, improvement of records and information systems, audit and feedback, patient education, organizational changes and work processes. We estimated absolute and relative improvements of the criteria and their statistical significance (α = 5%). The facilitators and hinders of the intervention were analyzed according to the Model for Understanding Success in Quality.

RESULTS

After the intervention, there was a total absolute improvement of 6.7% (64.4% versus 71.0%) and relative of 28.8% (p > 0.05). Eight of the ten quality criteria had an improvement, which was significant in four of them (p < 0.05). The monthly indicator of adequate treatment also improved (p < 0.05), but maintained low performance throughout the project. The increase in the compliance of the treatment scheme with the protocol (91.4% versus 99.1%) positively stood out, but the main opportunities for improvement were testing (42.8% versus 48.5%) and treatment of sexual partnerships (42.8% versus 44.2%). Regulatory pressures to improve the monthly indicator and the political-economic crisis experienced by the municipality modulated the effect of the intervention.

CONCLUSION

The project was useful to identify priorities and guide interventions to improve the quality of care for syphilis, although there is still ample room for improvement. The identified problems, as well as the contextual modulators of the effect, should be considered in future interventions.

The need to prioritize "prioritization" in clinical pharmacy service practice and implementation

Pharmacists are increasingly asked to incorporate new and greater amounts of clinical services into their traditional medication distribution responsibilities, but many barriers exist. Given the demanding pharmacy practice environment, improved time management may improve implementation rates. One area not previously explored within this area is the clinical skill of "prioritization" of medication related problems (MRPs). Prioritization is vital as the workload demand for pharmacist time exceeds time available; however, the underdeveloped skills of prioritizing is a concern in the field of pharmacy practice, as it also is across professions in healthcare. Previous research has suggested that pharmacists and student pharmacists inexperienced in implementing clinical services struggle knowing where to begin when providing direct patient care, given the complex patient care regimens, a complex pharmacy practice workload, and the numerous preventative care interventions possible for a given patient. This paper provides a review of theory and science of prioritization in patient care service delivery, including Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), Lean Six Sigma (LSS), and Jaen's Competing Demands framework. A case study is shared which emphasizes both the need for and potential impact of a renewed focus on workload management skills, such as prioritization.

Can quality improvement improve the quality of care? A systematic review of reported effects and methodological rigor in plan-do-study-act projects

Background

The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) method is widely used in quality improvement (QI) strategies. However, previous studies have indicated that methodological problems are frequent in PDSA-based QI projects. Furthermore, it has been difficult to establish an association between the use of PDSA and improvements in clinical practices and patient outcomes. The aim of this systematic review was to examine whether recently published PDSA-based QI projects show self-reported effects and are conducted according to key features of the method.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in the PubMed, Embase and CINAHL databases. QI projects using PDSA published in peer-reviewed journals in 2015 and 2016 were included. Projects were assessed to determine the reported effects and the use of the following key methodological features; iterative cyclic method, continuous data collection, small-scale testing and use of a theoretical rationale.

Results

Of the 120 QI projects included, almost all reported improvement (98%). However, only 32 (27%) described a specific, quantitative aim and reached it. A total of 72 projects (60%) documented PDSA cycles sufficiently for inclusion in a full analysis of key features. Of these only three (4%) adhered to all four key methodological features.

Conclusion

Even though a majority of the QI projects reported improvements, the widespread challenges with low adherence to key methodological features in the individual projects pose a challenge for the legitimacy of PDSA-based QI. This review indicates that there is a continued need for improvement in quality improvement methodology.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4482-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.