Improving quality (IQ): a systems approach for the New Zealand health and disability sector.

A. King

2003-09-26

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Complexity, co-creation and social practices : re-constructing quality improvement : a case study in mental health

S. Hofer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17037/PUBS.04656940

2020-06-06

Abstract:The use of research evidence to change clinical practice remains a significant challenge. Quality improvement (QI) offers a methodological approach to support this ‘knowledge to practice’ process. However, most research on QI focuses on the use of knowledge and not its creation to improve practice. This research aimed to address this gap through an exploration of the social process of co-creating knowledge within a QI project. The case study aimed to improve the physical health of people with serious mental illness through the introduction of a physical health ‘pathway’. The QI project used participatory approaches to introduce new evidence-based clinical practices, initially on a single ward, and then scaled-up across five additional wards within an acute mental health unit in the National Health Service (NHS) in England. This four-year study used ethnographically-informed qualitative participatory approaches where the researcher was part of the QI project. Data were generated through participant observations, interviews and documentary analysis. The analysis included generating a narrative of the project, and the use of Knowledge Mobilisation and Implementation Science frameworks. This research offers a window on the social construction of a QI project. Improvement is a socio-technical process that relies on social practices to generate the work required to support the ‘knowledge to practice’ process. QI methods draw on the tacit knowledge and experiences of stakeholders which is codified in outputs from workshops, which in turn can be used in the co-design of interventions. This co-constitutive process of simultaneous knowledge ‘use’ and ‘creation’ contributes to the co-creation of collective understandings and meanings, which compose the social practices of QI. However, issues of responsibility and accountability pose a significant challenge, and a careful balance needs to be found between the use of the data for managing performance and supporting staff to reflect on their practice.

Medicine,Psychology,Sociology
Does quality improvement improve quality?

Mary Dixon-Woods,Graham P Martin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/futurehosp.3-3-191

2016-10-01

Future Hospital Journal

Abstract:Although quality improvement (QI) is frequently advocated as a way of addressing the problems with healthcare, evidence of its effectiveness has remained very mixed. The reasons for this are varied but the growing literature highlights particular challenges. Fidelity in the application of QI methods is often variable. QI work is often pursued through time-limited, small-scale projects, led by professionals who may lack the expertise, power or resources to instigate the changes required. There is insufficient attention to rigorous evaluation of improvement and to sharing the lessons of successes and failures. Too many QI interventions are seen as 'magic bullets' that will produce improvement in any situation, regardless of context. Too much improvement work is undertaken in isolation at a local level, failing to pool resources and develop collective solutions, and introducing new hazards in the process. This article considers these challenges and proposes four key ways in which QI might itself be improved.
Quality improvement development in Swedish healthcare and welfare services

Ann-Christine Andersson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlss-12-2023-0233

2024-07-19

International Journal of Lean Six Sigma

Abstract:Purpose Quality improvement has developed and spread, and today, all Swedish Regions emphasize that their strategies are based on systematic improvement. This paper aims to describe and illuminate the development of Quality Improvement (QI) in Swedish healthcare and welfare organizations by using publications in a Swedish context. Design/methodology/approach The overview synthesis is inspired by a scoping literature review approach of relevant literature. All publications relevant to Swedish healthcare and welfare settings between 1992 until 2020 were included. Findings In all, 213 papers, 29 books and chapters and 34 dissertations related to QI and research in Swedish healthcare and welfare context were identified. From 2011 to 2020, the publication rate increased rapidly. Six different focus areas emerged: systematic and value-creating improvement work; collaboration between organizations and healthcare providers; use of improvement methods and (theoretical) models; leadership and learning; measurements, quality registers and follow-up; and involvement and patient safety. Further QI development in Swedish healthcare and welfare points to an increased importance of collaboration between organizations and coproduction with beneficiaries for the healthcare and welfare services. Originality/value This paper is one of the first to describe and illuminate the QI development in the healthcare and welfare sector in a country. The trajectory also points to a need for coproduction to handle future challenges.

engineering, industrial,management
Structures and systems influencing quality improvement in Australian early childhood education and care centres

Linda J. Harrison,Manjula Waniganayake,Jude Brown,Rebecca Andrews,Hui Li,Fay Hadley,Susan Irvine,Lennie Barblett,Belinda Davis,Maria Hatzigianni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-022-00602-8

2023-01-05

Abstract:This study assessed the impact of structural characteristics on quality rating and improvement systems (QRIS) outcomes in an Australian national study. Data from the Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) repository of National Quality Standard (NQS) ratings were used to identify long day care services that had improved from Working Towards NQS to Meeting or Exceeding NQS or had no change over two assessments. QRIS outcomes were examined for state/territory jurisdiction, urban–rural location, community socio-economic status, type and size of provider organisation, centre size and stability of centre owner/provider using multinomial logistic regression analyses. Controlling for jurisdiction, results showed that improvement to Meeting NQS was more likely for not-for-profit versus for-profit providers and for large multi-site provider organisations versus small, stand-alone providers. Improvement to Exceeding NQS was also associated with not-for-profit and larger provider organisations, as well as larger versus smaller centres, and centres that had stable ownership.

education & educational research
Using Quality Improvement as a Mechanism for Fostering Partnerships and Promoting Equity in a Health System Change Model

Caroline E Chandler,Laura Louison,Nancy Madenyika,Nakenge Robertson,Brie Hardy,Sarah Allin,Dan Kimberg,W Oscar Fleming,Caroline E. Chandler,W. Oscar Fleming

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-024-03916-4

2024-02-27

Maternal and Child Health Journal

Abstract:Quality improvement (QI) processes provide a framework for systematically examining target outcomes and what changes can be made to result in improvement and ensure equity. We present a case study of how QI processes were used as a means of partnership building to enhance equity in designing materials for a Medicaid pilot program, North Carolina Integrated Care for Kids (NC InCK).

public, environmental & occupational health
Quality improvement into practice

Adam Backhouse,Fatai Ogunlayi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m865

2020-03-31

BMJ

Abstract:What you need to knowThinking of quality improvement (QI) as a principle-based approach to change provides greater clarity about (a) the contribution QI offers to staff and patients, (b) how to differentiate it from other approaches, (c) the benefits of using QI together with other change approachesQI is not a silver bullet for all changes required in healthcare: it has great potential to be used together with other change approaches, either concurrently (using audit to inform iterative tests of change) or consecutively (using QI to adapt published research to local context)As QI becomes established, opportunities for these collaborations will grow, to the benefit of patients.The benefits to front line clinicians of participating in quality improvement (QI) activity are promoted in many health systems. QI can represent a valuable opportunity for individuals to be involved in leading and delivering change, from improving individual patient care to transforming services across complex health...
Continuous Quality Improvement and Comprehensive Primary Health Care: A Systems Framework to Improve Service Quality and Health Outcomes

Janya McCalman,Ross Bailie,Roxanne Bainbridge,Karen McPhail-Bell,Nikki Percival,Deborah Askew,Ruth Fagan,Komla Tsey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00076

IF: 5.2

2018-03-22

Frontiers in Public Health

Abstract:Continuous quality improvement (CQI) processes for improving clinical care and health outcomes have been implemented by primary health-care services, with resultant health-care impacts. But only 10-20% of gain in health outcomes is contributed by health-care services; a much larger share is determined by social and cultural factors. This perspective paper argues that health care and health outcomes can be enhanced through applying CQI as a systems approach to comprehensive primary health care. Referring to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australian context as an example, the authors provide a systems framework that includes strategies and conditions to facilitate evidence-based and local decision making by primary health-care services. The framework describes the integration of CQI vertically to improve linkages with governments and community members and horizontally with other sectors to influence the social and cultural determinants of health. Further, government and primary health-care service investment is required to support and extend integration and evaluation of CQI efforts vertically and horizontally.

public, environmental & occupational health
Data Quality-Driven Improvement in Health Care: Systematic Literature Review

Anthony Lighterness,Michael Adcock,Lauren Abigail Scanlon,Gareth Price

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/57615

2024-08-22

Abstract:Background: The promise of real-world evidence and the learning health care system primarily depends on access to high-quality data. Despite widespread awareness of the prevalence and potential impacts of poor data quality (DQ), best practices for its assessment and improvement are unknown. Objective: This review aims to investigate how existing research studies define, assess, and improve the quality of structured real-world health care data. Methods: A systematic literature search of studies in the English language was implemented in the Embase and PubMed databases to select studies that specifically aimed to measure and improve the quality of structured real-world data within any clinical setting. The time frame for the analysis was from January 1945 to June 2023. We standardized DQ concepts according to the Data Management Association (DAMA) DQ framework to enable comparison between studies. After screening and filtering by 2 independent authors, we identified 39 relevant articles reporting DQ improvement initiatives. Results: The studies were characterized by considerable heterogeneity in settings and approaches to DQ assessment and improvement. Affiliated institutions were from 18 different countries and 18 different health domains. DQ assessment methods were largely manual and targeted completeness and 1 other DQ dimension. Use of DQ frameworks was limited to the Weiskopf and Weng (3/6, 50%) or Kahn harmonized model (3/6, 50%). Use of standardized methodologies to design and implement quality improvement was lacking, but mainly included plan-do-study-act (PDSA) or define-measure-analyze-improve-control (DMAIC) cycles. Most studies reported DQ improvements using multiple interventions, which included either DQ reporting and personalized feedback (24/39, 61%), IT-related solutions (21/39, 54%), training (17/39, 44%), improvements in workflows (5/39, 13%), or data cleaning (3/39, 8%). Most studies reported improvements in DQ through a combination of these interventions. Statistical methods were used to determine significance of treatment effect (22/39, 56% times), but only 1 study implemented a randomized controlled study design. Variability in study designs, approaches to delivering interventions, and reporting DQ changes hindered a robust meta-analysis of treatment effects. Conclusions: There is an urgent need for standardized guidelines in DQ improvement research to enable comparison and effective synthesis of lessons learned. Frameworks such as PDSA learning cycles and the DAMA DQ framework can facilitate this unmet need. In addition, DQ improvement studies can also benefit from prioritizing root cause analysis of DQ issues to ensure the most appropriate intervention is implemented, thereby ensuring long-term, sustainable improvement. Despite the rise in DQ improvement studies in the last decade, significant heterogeneity in methodologies and reporting remains a challenge. Adopting standardized frameworks for DQ assessment, analysis, and improvement can enhance the effectiveness, comparability, and generalizability of DQ improvement initiatives.
Improving data quality control in quality improvement projects

Dale M. Needham,David J. Sinopoli,Victor D. Dinglas,Sean M. Berenholtz,Radha Korupolu,Sam R. Watson,Lisa Lubomski,Christine Goeschel,Peter J. Pronovost,D. M. Needham,D. J. Sinopoli,V. D. Dinglas,S. M. Berenholtz,R. Korupolu,S. R. Watson,L. Lubomski,C. Goeschel,P. J. Pronovost

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzp005

2009-04-01

International Journal for Quality in Health Care

Abstract:BACKGROUND: The results of many quality improvement (QI) projects are gaining wide-spread attention. Policy-makers, hospital leaders and clinicians make important decisions based on the assumption that QI project results are accurate. However, compared with clinical research, QI projects are typically conducted with substantially fewer resources, potentially impacting data quality. Our objective was to provide a primer on basic data quality control methods appropriate for QI efforts.METHODS: Data quality control methods should be applied throughout all phases of a QI project. In the design phase, project aims should guide data collection decisions, emphasizing quality (rather than quantity) of data and considering resource limitations. In the data collection phase, standardized data collection forms, comprehensive staff training and a well-designed database can help maximize the quality of the data. Clearly defined data elements, quality assurance reviews of both collection and entry and system-based controls reduce the likelihood of error. In the data management phase, missing data should be quickly identified and corrected with system-based controls to minimize the missing data. Finally, in the data analysis phase, appropriate statistical methods and sensitivity analysis aid in managing and understanding the effects of missing data and outliers, in addressing potential confounders and in conveying the precision of results.CONCLUSION: Data quality control is essential to ensure the integrity of results from QI projects. Feasible methods are available and important to help ensure that stakeholder's decisions are based on accurate data.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
From assurance to coproduction: a century of improving the quality of health-care service

Paul Batalden,Tina Foster

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzab059

2021-11-29

Abstract:Background: Over the last century, the invitation to improve health-care service quality has taken many different forms: questions, observations, methods, tools and actions have emerged and evolved to create relevant 'improvement work.' In this paper we present three phases of this work. The basic frameworks used in these phases have not supplanted each other, but they have been layered one upon the next over time. Each brought important new thinking, new change opportunities and a new set of limits. The important messages of each need to be carried together into the future, as must the sense of curiosity and possibility about the commonalities that has driven this evolution. Methods: Literature, personal experience and other artifacts were reviewed to develop this description of how the focus on quality work has evolved (and continues to evolve) over the last century. Results: We describe three phases. Quality 1.0 seeks to answer the question 'How might we establish thresholds for good healthcare services?' It described certain 'basic' standards that should be used to certify acceptable performance and capability. This led to the formation of formal processes for review, documentation and external audits and a system for public notice and recognition. Over time, the limits and risks of this approach also became more visible: a 'micro-accounting compliance' sometimes triumphed over what might be of even greater strategic importance in the development and operations of effective systems of disease prevention and management to improve outcomes for patients and families. Quality 2.0 asked 'How might we use enterprise-wide systems for disease management?' It added a focus on the processes and systems of production, reduction of unwanted variation, the intrinsic motivation to take pride in work, outcome measurement and collaborative work practices as ways to improve quality, modeled on experiences in other industries. Quality 3.0 asks 'How might we improve the value of the contribution that healthcare service makes to health?' It requires careful consideration of the meaning of 'service' and 'value', service-creating logic, and prompts us to consider both relationships and activities in the context of the coproduction of health-care services. Conclusion: Efforts to improve the quality and value of health-care services have evolved over the last century. With each success have come new challenges and questions, requiring the addition of new frames and approaches.
Quality improvement in primary care clinics

L R Fischer,L I Solberg,T E Kottke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s1070-3241(16)30387-x

Abstract:Background: Case studies from Project IMPROVE, the first randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of continuous quality improvement (CQI) in primary care, were subjected to a qualitative analysis. Three questions were addressed: How does change in the health care environment affect a quality improvement (QI) process? How does clinic organization influence a QI process? and What is the impact of a QI process on clinic organization? Method: Case studies were conducted in 6 clinics that had been randomly selected from the 22 clinics participating in the IMPROVE intervention. The case study data consisted of observations of CQI team meetings, open-ended interviews with 30 informants (team members plus others in the clinics), interviews with IMPROVE consultants, and documentation from the project. The data were analyzed to identify themes and generate concepts, assess and compare the informants' experiences, and develop a conceptual framework stimulated by research and theory literature. Results: Change and uncertainty in the health care environment both complicated the QI process and motivated participation in improvement. The smaller clinics appeared to have more difficulty with the QI process because of limited resources and lack of compatibility between the QI approach and their clinic organization. Project IMPROVE had two qualitative effects on clinics: increased awareness of preventive services and application of the CQI method to other problems and issues. Conclusion: QI initiatives can help clinics adapt to a changing health care environment and create functioning teams or groups that can address a variety of organization problems and tasks. The process should be flexible to accommodate varying organization structures and cultures.
Exploring the fit between organizational culture and quality improvement in a home-care environment

Oscar E Firbank

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0b013e3181cd1780

Abstract:Background: Overseeing the quality of community-based, home-care services is a subject of concern in most jurisdictions confronted with population aging and the rise of chronic conditions. Although various quality management strategies have been used in different health care settings, continuous quality improvement (CQI) is still in the early stages of development among home-care service providers. What is more, some authors have raised questions as to whether CQI is suitable to the unique character of home-care and can be adequately applied to a diverse and varied range of agencies, each featuring a unique organizational culture, professional mix, and mode of operation. Purposes: The article reports on how differing organizational cultures--as found in a set of public and private home-care providers--appear to affect agency receptivity to CQI during program implementation. Methodology/approach: The research methodology is characterized by a qualitative, multiple case study approach. Data were gathered from a purposive sample of four home-care agencies in Quebec, Canada, belonging to the public, private for-profit, and not-for-profit sectors. Findings and practice implications: It is concluded that a core set of cultural attributes play a decisive role in determining agency receptivity to CQI, even when its effect is mediated by several contingent variables. Further, some of the levers and barriers to implementation identified in previous research seem less relevant to home-care agencies. A number of policy/management implications are discussed, which may enhance receptivity to CQI by home-care agencies and prevent implementation failure.
To improve quality, leverage design

Byron Crowe,Jessica S Gaulton,Noah Minor,David A Asch,Jeff Eyet,Erin Rainosek,Kristen Flint,Joseph Joo,Chip Chambers,Sherry Bright,Julius J Yang,Gene Beyt,Read Pierce,James M Moses

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-013605

2021-09-11

Abstract:The intersection of quality improvement and design thinking The year was 1987, and a bold experiment was under way—the US-based National Demonstration Project in Quality Improvement in Health Care (NDP). This effort brought together 21 companies recognised for excellence in quality manufacturing with 21 healthcare organisations to test whether revolutionary practices from quality improvement (QI) could be applied to healthcare. The partnership succeeded and NDP was extended for another 3 years, eventually becoming the Institute for Healthcare Improvement.1 Since then, QI principles and methods have spread broadly across healthcare. Around the same time the NDP was under way, another quiet revolution in systems thinking was taking shape in the emerging field of human-centred design. In 1988, Norman authored the landmark book 'The Design of Everyday Things', an explanation of how human-centred design—'an approach that puts human needs, capabilities, and behavior first, then designs to accommodate those needs,...

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
How to sustainably build capacity in quality improvement within a healthcare organisation: a deep-dive, focused qualitative analysis

Peter D. Hibbert,Martin Basedow,Jeffrey Braithwaite,Louise K. Wiles,Robyn Clay-Williams,Robert Padbury

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06598-8

2021-06-18

BMC Health Services Research

Abstract:Abstract Background A key characteristic of healthcare systems that deliver high quality and cost performance in a sustainable way is a systematic approach to capacity and capability building for quality improvement. The aim of this research was to explore the factors that lead to successful implementation of a program of quality improvement projects and a capacity and capability building program that facilitates or support these. Methods Between July 2018 and February 2020, the Southern Adelaide Local Health Network (SALHN), a network of health services in Adelaide, South Australia, conducted three capability-oriented capacity building programs that incorporated 82 longstanding individual quality improvement projects. Qualitative analysis of data collected from interviews of 19 project participants and four SALHN Improvement Faculty members and ethnographic observations of seven project team meetings were conducted. Results We found four interacting components that lead to successful implementation of quality improvement projects and the overall program that facilitates or support these: an agreed and robust quality improvement methodology, a skilled faculty to assist improvement teams, active involvement of leadership and management, and a deep understanding that teams matter. A strong safety culture is not necessarily a pre-requisite for quality improvement gains to be made; indeed, undertaking quality improvement activities can contribute to an improved safety culture. For most project participants in the program, the time commitment for projects was significant and, at times, maintaining momentum was a challenge. Conclusions Healthcare systems that wish to deliver high quality and cost performance in a sustainable way should consider embedding the four identified components into their quality improvement capacity and capability building strategy.

health care sciences & services
Development and application of ‘systems thinking’ principles for quality improvement

Duncan McNab,John McKay,Steven Shorrock,Sarah Luty,Paul Bowie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2019-000714

2020-03-01

BMJ Open Quality

Abstract:Introduction ‘Systems thinking’ is often recommended in healthcare to support quality and safety activities but a shared understanding of this concept and purposeful guidance on its application are limited. Healthcare systems have been described as complex where human adaptation to localised circumstances is often necessary to achieve success. Principles for managing and improving system safety developed by the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL; a European intergovernmental air navigation organisation) incorporate a ‘Safety-II systems approach’ to promote understanding of how safety may be achieved in complex work systems. We aimed to adapt and contextualise the core principles of this systems approach and demonstrate the application in a healthcare setting. Methods The original EUROCONTROL principles were adapted using consensus-building methods with front-line staff and national safety leaders. Results Six interrelated principles for healthcare were agreed. The foundation concept acknowledges that ‘most healthcare problems and solutions belong to the system’. Principle 1 outlines the need to seek multiple perspectives to understand system safety. Principle 2 prompts us to consider the influence of prevailing work conditions—demand, capacity, resources and constraints. Principle 3 stresses the importance of analysing interactions and work flow within the system. Principle 4 encourages us to attempt to understand why professional decisions made sense at the time and principle 5 prompts us to explore everyday work including the adjustments made to achieve success in changing system conditions. A case study is used to demonstrate the application in an analysis of a system and in the subsequent improvement intervention design. Conclusions Application of the adapted principles underpins, and is characteristic of, a holistic systems approach and may aid care team and organisational system understanding and improvement.
Improving the Quality of Care in Care Homes Using the Quality Improvement Collaborative Approach: Lessons Learnt from Six Projects Conducted in the UK and The Netherlands

Reena Devi,Graham Martin,Jay Banerjee,Louise Butler,Tim Pattison,Lesley Cruickshank,Caroline Maries-Tillott,Tracie Wilson,Sarah Damery,Julienne Meyer,Antonius Poot,Peter Chamberlain,Debbie Harvey,Clarissa Giebel,Kathryn Hinsliff-Smith,Neil Chadborn,Adam Lee Gordon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207601

IF: 4.614

2020-10-19

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Abstract:The Breakthrough Series Quality Improvement Collaborative (QIC) initiative is a well-developed and widely used approach, but most of what we know about it has come from healthcare settings. In this article, those leading QICs to improve care in care homes provide detailed accounts of six QICs and share their learning of applying the QIC approach in the care home sector. Overall, five care home-specific lessons were learnt: (i) plan for the resources needed to support collaborative teams with collecting, processing, and interpreting data; (ii) create encouraging and safe working environments to help collaborative team members feel valued; (iii) recruit collaborative teams, QIC leads, and facilitators who have established relationships with care homes; (iv) regularly check project ideas are aligned with team members’ job roles, responsibilities, and priorities; and (v) work flexibly and accept that planned activities may need adapting as the project progresses. These insights are targeted at teams delivering QICs in care homes. These insights demonstrate the need to consider the care home context when applying improvement tools and techniques in this setting.

public, environmental & occupational health,environmental sciences
The Ethics of Using Quality Improvement Methods in Health Care

Joanne Lynn,Mary Ann Baily,Melissa Bottrell,Bruce Jennings,Robert J Levine,Frank Davidoff,David Casarett,Janet Corrigan,Ellen Fox,Matthew K Wynia,George J Agich,Margaret O'Kane,Theodore Speroff,Paul Schyve,Paul Batalden,Sean Tunis,Nancy Berlinger,Linda Cronenwett,J Michael Fitzmaurice,Nancy Neveloff Dubler,Brent James

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-146-9-200705010-00155

IF: 39.2

2007-05-01

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:Quality improvement (QI) activities can improve health care but must be conducted ethically. The Hastings Center convened leaders and scholars to address ethical requirements for QI and their relationship to regulations protecting human subjects of research. The group defined QI as systematic, data-guided activities designed to bring about immediate improvements in health care delivery in particular settings and concluded that QI is an intrinsic part of normal health care operations. Both clinicians and patients have an ethical responsibility to participate in QI, provided that it complies with specified ethical requirements. Most QI activities are not human subjects research and should not undergo review by an institutional review board; rather, appropriately calibrated supervision of QI activities should be part of professional supervision of clinical practice. The group formulated a framework that would use key characteristics of a project and its context to categorize it as QI, human subjects research, or both, with the potential of a customized institutional review board process for the overlap category. The group recommended a period of innovation and evaluation to refine the framework for ethical conduct of QI and to integrate that framework into clinical practice.

medicine, general & internal
Quality improvement for NICU graduates: Feasible, relevant, impactful

Jonathan S Litt,Susan R Hintz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2021.101205

Abstract:Continuous quality improvement (CQI) has become a vital component of newborn medicine. Applying core principles - robust measurement, repeated small tests of change, collaborative learning through data sharing - have led to improvements in care quality, safety, and outcomes in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). High-risk infant follow-up programs (HRIF) have historically aided such quality improvement efforts by providing outcomes data about NICU interventions. Though as a discipline, HRIF has not universally embraced CQI for its own practice. In this review, we summarize the history of CQI in neonatology and applications of improvement science in healthcare and describe examples of CQI in HRIF. We identify the need for consensus on what defines 'high-risk' and constitutes meaningful outcomes. Last, we outline four areas for future investment: establishing evidence-based care delivery systems, standardizing outcomes and their measures, embracing a family-centered approach prioritizing parent goals, and developing professional standards of care for HRIF.
Board level “Picture-Understanding-Action”: a new way of looking at quality

Jennifer Martin,Maureen A. Flynn,Zuneera Khurshid,John J. Fitzsimons,Gemma Moore,Philip Crowley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/ijhg-05-2021-0047

2021-12-23

International Journal of Health Governance

Abstract:Purpose The purpose of this study is to present a quality improvement approach titled “Picture-Understanding-Action” used in Ireland to enhance the role of healthcare boards in the oversight of healthcare quality and its improvement. Design/methodology/approach The novel and practical “Picture-Understanding-Action” approach was implemented using the Model for Improvement to iteratively introduce changes across three quality improvement projects. This approach outlines the concepts and activities used at each step to support planning and implementation of processes that allow a board to effectively achieve its role in overseeing and improving quality. This approach matured over three quality improvement projects. Findings The “Picture” included quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative “Picture” consisted of a quality dashboard/profile of board selected outcome indicators representative of the health system using statistical process control (SPC) charts to focus discussion on real signals of change. The qualitative picture was based on the experience of people who use and work in health services which “people-ised” the numbers. Probing this “Picture” with collective grounding, curiosity and expert training/facilitation developed a shared “Understanding”. This led to “Action(s)” from board members to improve the “Picture” and “Understanding” (feedback action), to ask better questions and make better decisions and recommendations to the executive (feed-forward action). The Model for Improvement, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles and a co-design approach in design and implementation were key to success. Originality/value To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first time a board has undertaken a quality improvement (QI) project to enhance its own processes. It addresses a gap in research by outlining actions that boards can take to improve their oversight of quality of care.
Building capacity and capability for quality improvement: insights from a nascent regional health system

Yan Jun Ng,Kelvin Sin Min Lew,Adrian Ujin Yap,Lit Sin Quek,Chi Hong Hwang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002903

2024-09-28

Abstract:Objectives: Quality improvement (QI) is critical in facilitating advancements in patient outcomes, system efficiency and professional growth. This paper aimed to elucidate the underlying rationale and framework guiding JurongHealth Campus (JHC), a nascent Regional Health System, in developing its QI capacity and capability at all levels of the organisation. Methods: An exhaustive analysis of high-performance management systems and effective improvement frameworks was conducted, and the principles were customised to suit the local context.A three-phased approach was applied: (1) developing the JHC QI framework; (2) building capacity through a dosing approach and (3) building capability through QI projects and initiatives using the model for improvement (MFI). Three components of the RE-AIM implementation strategy were assessed: (1) Reach-overall percentage of staff trained; (2) Effectiveness-outcomes from organisation-wide improvement projects and (3) Adoption-number of QI projects collated and presented. Results: The percentage of staff trained in QI increased from 11.3% to 22.0% between January 2020 and March 2024, with over 350 projects documented in the central repository. The effectiveness of the MFI was demonstrated by improving inpatient discharges before 12pm performance from 21.52% to 25.84% and reducing the 30-day inpatient readmission rate from 13.92% to 12.96%. Conclusion: Four critical factors for an effective QI framework were identified: (1) establishing a common language for improvement; (2) defining distinct roles and skills for improvement at different levels of the organisation; (3) adopting a dosing approach to QI training according to the defined roles and skills and (4) building a critical mass of committed staff trained in QI practice. The pragmatic approach to developing QI capability is both scalable and applicable to emerging healthcare institutions.

Improving quality (IQ): a systems approach for the New Zealand health and disability sector.

Complexity, co-creation and social practices : re-constructing quality improvement : a case study in mental health

Does quality improvement improve quality?

Quality improvement development in Swedish healthcare and welfare services

Structures and systems influencing quality improvement in Australian early childhood education and care centres

Using Quality Improvement as a Mechanism for Fostering Partnerships and Promoting Equity in a Health System Change Model

Quality improvement into practice

Continuous Quality Improvement and Comprehensive Primary Health Care: A Systems Framework to Improve Service Quality and Health Outcomes

Data Quality-Driven Improvement in Health Care: Systematic Literature Review

Improving data quality control in quality improvement projects

From assurance to coproduction: a century of improving the quality of health-care service

Quality improvement in primary care clinics

Exploring the fit between organizational culture and quality improvement in a home-care environment

To improve quality, leverage design

How to sustainably build capacity in quality improvement within a healthcare organisation: a deep-dive, focused qualitative analysis

Development and application of ‘systems thinking’ principles for quality improvement

Improving the Quality of Care in Care Homes Using the Quality Improvement Collaborative Approach: Lessons Learnt from Six Projects Conducted in the UK and The Netherlands

The Ethics of Using Quality Improvement Methods in Health Care

Quality improvement for NICU graduates: Feasible, relevant, impactful

Board level “Picture-Understanding-Action”: a new way of looking at quality

Building capacity and capability for quality improvement: insights from a nascent regional health system