The involvement of medical doctors in hospital governance and implications for quality management: a quick scan in 19 and an in depth study in 7 OECD countries.

BACKGROUND: Hospital governance is broadening its orientation from cost and production controls towards 'improving performance on clinical outcomes'. Given this new focus one might assume that doctors are drawn into hospital management across OECD countries. Hospital performance in terms of patient health, quality of care and efficiency outcomes is supposed to benefit from their involvement. However, international comparative evidence supporting this idea is limited. Just a few studies indicate that there may be a positive relationship between medical doctors being part of hospital boards, and overall hospital performance. More importantly, the assumed relationship between these so-called doctor managers and hospital performance has remained a 'black-box' thus far. However, there is an increasing literature on the implementation of quality management systems in hospitals and their relation with improved performance. It seems therefore fair to assume that the relation between the involvement of doctors in hospital management and improved hospital performance is partly mediated via quality management systems. The threefold aim of this paper is to 1) perform a quick scan of the current situation with regard to doctor managers in hospital management in 19 OECD countries, 2) explore the phenomenon of doctor managers in depth in 7 OECD countries, and 3) investigate whether doctor involvement in hospital management is associated with more advanced implementation of quality management systems. METHODS: This study draws both on a quick scan amongst country coordinators in OECD's Health Care Quality Indicator program, and on the DUQuE project which focused on the implementation of quality management systems in European hospitals. RESULTS: This paper reports two main findings. First, medical doctors fulfil a broad scope of managerial roles at departmental and hospital level but only partly accompanied by formal decision making responsibilities. Second, doctor managers having more formal decision making responsibilities in strategic hospital management areas is positively associated with the level of implementation of quality management systems. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that doctors are increasingly involved in hospital management in OECD countries, and that this may lead to better implemented quality management systems, when doctors take up managerial roles and are involved in strategic management decision making.

The associations between organizational culture, organizational structure and quality management in European hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand associations between organizational culture (OC), organizational management structure (OS) and quality management in hospitals. DESIGN: A multi-method, multi-level, cross-sectional observational study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: As part of the DUQuE project (Deepening our Understanding of Quality improvement in Europe), a random sample of 188 hospitals in 7 countries (France, Poland, Turkey, Portugal, Spain, Germany and Czech Republic) participated in a comprehensive questionnaire survey and a one-day on-site surveyor audit. Respondents for this study (n = 158) included professional quality managers and hospital trustees. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Extent of implementation of quality management systems, extent of compliance with existing management procedures and implementation of clinical quality activities. RESULTS: Among participating hospitals, 33% had a clan culture as their dominant culture type, 26% an open and developmental culture type, 16% a hierarchical culture type and 25% a rational culture type. The culture type had no statistically significant association with the outcome measures. Some structural characteristics were associated with the development of quality management systems. CONCLUSION: The type of OC was not associated with the development of quality management in hospitals. Other factors (not culture type) are associated with the development of quality management. An OS that uses fewer protocols is associated with a less developed quality management system, whereas an OS which supports innovation in care is associated with a more developed quality management system.

The use of on-site visits to assess compliance and implementation of quality management at hospital level.

OBJECTIVE: Stakeholders of hospitals often lack standardized tools to assess compliance with quality management strategies and the implementation of clinical quality activities in hospitals. Such assessment tools, if easy to use, could be helpful to hospitals, health-care purchasers and health-care inspectorates. The aim of our study was to determine the psychometric properties of two newly developed tools for measuring compliance with process-oriented quality management strategies and the extent of implementation of clinical quality strategies at the hospital level. DESIGN: We developed and tested two measurement instruments that could be used during on-site visits by trained external surveyors to calculate a Quality Management Compliance Index (QMCI) and a Clinical Quality Implementation Index (CQII). We used psychometric methods and the cross-sectional data to explore the factor structure, reliability and validity of each of these instruments. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The sample consisted of 74 acute care hospitals selected at random from each of 7 European countries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The psychometric properties of the two indices (QMCI and CQII). RESULTS: Overall, the indices demonstrated favourable psychometric performance based on factor analysis, item correlations, internal consistency and hypothesis testing. Cronbach's alpha was acceptable for the scales of the QMCI (α: 0.74-0.78) and the CQII (α: 0.82-0.93). Inter-scale correlations revealed that the scales were positively correlated, but distinct. All scales added sufficient new information to each main index to be retained. CONCLUSION: This study has produced two reliable instruments that can be used during on-site visits to assess compliance with quality management strategies and implementation of quality management activities by hospitals in Europe and perhaps other jurisdictions.

Development and validation of an index to assess hospital quality management systems.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and validate an index to assess the implementation of quality management systems (QMSs) in European countries. DESIGN: Questionnaire development was facilitated through expert opinion, literature review and earlier empirical research. A cross-sectional online survey utilizing the questionnaire was undertaken between May 2011 and February 2012. We used psychometric methods to explore the factor structure, reliability and validity of the instrument. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: As part of the Deepening our Understanding of Quality improvement in Europe (DUQuE) project, we invited a random sample of 188 hospitals in 7 countries. The quality managers of these hospitals were the main respondents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The extent of implementation of QMSs. RESULTS: Factor analysis yielded nine scales, which were combined to build the Quality Management Systems Index. Cronbach's reliability coefficients were satisfactory (ranging from 0.72 to 0.82) for eight scales and low for one scale (0.48). Corrected item-total correlations provided adequate evidence of factor homogeneity. Inter-scale correlations showed that every factor was related, but also distinct, and added to the index. Construct validity testing showed that the index was related to recent measures of quality. Participating hospitals attained a mean value of 19.7 (standard deviation of 4.7) on the index that theoretically ranged from 0 to 27. CONCLUSION: Assessing QMSs across Europe has the potential to help policy-makers and other stakeholders to compare hospitals and focus on the most important areas for improvement.

Is having quality as an item on the executive board agenda associated with the implementation of quality management systems in European hospitals: a quantitative analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether there is a relationship between having quality as an item on the board's agenda, perceived external pressure (PEP) and the implementation of quality management in European hospitals. DESIGN: A quantitative, mixed method, cross-sectional study in seven European countries in 2011 surveying CEOs and quality managers and data from onsite audits. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and fifty-five CEOs and 155 quality managers. SETTING: One hundred and fifty-five randomly selected acute care hospitals in seven European countries (Czech Republic, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Turkey). Main outcome measure(s) Three constructs reflecting quality management based on questionnaire and audit data: (i) Quality Management System Index, (ii) Quality Management Compliance Index and (iii) Clinical Quality Implementation Index. The main predictor was whether quality performance was on the executive board's agenda. RESULTS: Discussing quality performance at executive board meetings more often was associated with a higher quality management system score (regression coefficient b = 2.53; SE = 1.16; P = 0.030). We found a trend in the associations of discussing quality performance with quality compliance and clinical quality implementation. PEP did not modify these relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Having quality as an item on the executive board's agenda allows them to review and discuss quality performance more often in order to improve their hospital's quality management. Generally, and as this study found, having quality on the executive board's agenda matters.

Feasibility of using administrative data to compare hospital performance in the EU.

OBJECTIVE: To describe hospitals' organizational arrangements relevant to the abstraction of administrative data, to report on the completeness of administrative data collected and to assess associations between organizational arrangements and completeness of data submission. DESIGN: A cross-sectional STUDY DESIGN: utilizing administrative data. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomly selected hospitals from seven European countries (The Czech Republic, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Completeness of data submission for four quality indicators: mortality after acute myocardial infarction, stroke and hip fractures and complications after normal delivery. RESULTS: In general, hospitals were able to produce data on the four indicators required for this research study. A substantial proportion had missing data on one or more data items. The proportion of hospitals that was able to produce more detailed indicators of relevance for quality monitoring and improvement was low and ranged from 40.1% for thrombolysis performed on patients with acute ischemic stroke to 63.8% for hip-fracture operations performed within 48 h after admission for patients aged 65 or older. National factors were strong predictors of data completeness on the studied indicators. CONCLUSIONS: At present, hospital administrative databases do not seem to be an appropriate source of information for comparison of hospital performance across the countries of the EU. However, given that this is a dynamic field, changes to administrative databases may make this possible in the near future. Such changes could be accelerated by an in-depth comparative analysis of the issues of using administrative data for comparisons of hospital performances in EU countries.

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.

Application of quality improvement strategies in 389 European hospitals: results of the MARQuIS project.

CONTEXT: This study was part of the Methods of Assessing Response to Quality Improvement Strategies (MARQuIS) research project investigating the impact of quality improvement strategies on hospital care in various countries of the European Union (EU), in relation to specific needs of cross-border patients. AIM: This paper describes how EU hospitals have applied seven quality improvement strategies previously defined by the MARQuIS study: organisational quality management programmes; systems for obtaining patients' views; patient safety systems; audit and internal assessment of clinical standards; clinical and practice guidelines; performance indicators; and external assessment. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire was used to survey acute care hospitals in eight EU countries. The reported findings were later validated via on-site survey and site visits in a sample of the participating hospitals. Data collection took place from April to August 2006. RESULTS: 389 hospitals participated in the survey; response rates varied per country. All seven quality improvement strategies were widely used in European countries. Activities related to external assessment were the most broadly applied across Europe, and activities related to patient involvement were the least widely implemented. No one country implemented all quality strategies at all hospitals. There were no differences between participating hospitals in western and eastern European countries regarding the application of quality improvement strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation varied per country and per quality improvement strategy, leaving considerable scope for progress in quality improvements. The results may contribute to benchmarking activities in European countries, and point to further areas of research to explore the relationship between the application of quality improvement strategies and actual hospital performance.

Differentiating between hospitals according to the "maturity" of quality improvement systems: a new classification scheme in a sample of European hospitals.

AIM: This study, part of the Methods of Assessing Response to Quality Improvement Strategies (MARQuIS) research project focusing on cross-border patients in Europe, investigated quality policies and improvement in healthcare systems across the European Union (EU). The aim was to develop a classification scheme for the level of quality improvement (maturity) in EU hospitals, in order to evaluate hospitals according to the maturity of their quality improvement activities. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire survey designed to measure quality improvement in EU hospitals was used as the basis for the classification scheme. Items included for the development of an evaluation tool--the maturity index--were considered important contributors to quality improvement. The four-stage quality cycle (plan, do, check and act) was used to determine the level of maturity of the various items. Psychometric properties of the classification scheme were assessed, and validation analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 389 hospitals participated in a questionnaire survey; response rates varied by country. For a final sample of 349 hospitals, it was possible to construct a quality improvement maturity index which consisted of seven domains and 113 items. The results of independent analyses sustained the validity of the index, which was useful in differentiating between hospitals in the research sample according to the maturity of their quality improvement system (defined as the total of all quality improvement activities). DISCUSSION: Further research is recommended to develop an instrument which for use in the future as a practical tool to evaluate the maturity of hospital quality improvement systems.

Cross-border care and healthcare quality improvement in Europe: the MARQuIS research project.

Citizens are increasingly crossing borders within the European Union (EU). Europeans have always been free to travel to receive care abroad, but if they wished to benefit from their statutory social protection scheme, they were subject to their local or national legislation on social protection. This changed in 1991 with the European Court of Justice defining healthcare as a service, starting a debate on the right balance between different principles in European treaties: movement of persons, goods and services, versus the responsibility of member states to organise their healthcare systems. Simultaneously, cross-border cooperation has developed between member states. In this context, patient mobility has become a relevant issue on the EU's agenda. The EU funded a number of Scientific Support to Policies (SSP) activities within the Sixth Framework Programme, to provide the evidence needed by EU policy makers to deal with issues that European citizens face due to enhanced mobility in Europe. One SSP project "Methods of Assessing Response to Quality Improvement Strategies" (MARQuIS), focused on cross-border care. It aimed to assess the value of different quality strategies, and to provide information needed when: (1) countries contract care for patients moving across borders; and (2) individual hospitals review the design of their quality strategies. This article describes the European context related to healthcare, and its implications for cross-border healthcare in Europe. The background information demonstrates a need for further research and development in this area.

Do European hospitals have quality and safety governance systems and structures in place?

Internal systems for quality and safety were assessed in 89 hospitals in six European states, by external teams using standardised criteria and procedures, as part of the Methods of Assessing Response to Quality Improvement Strategies (MARQuIS) project. The assessments were made primarily to identify the current use of quality management systems in the sample hospitals, and also to demonstrate a potential tool for comparable assessment of hospitals in general. The large majority of the hospitals had a formal, documented infrastructure to manage quality and safety, but a significant minority had no designated mission, programme or coordination. In two-thirds of hospitals, the governing body was active in defining policy and programmes for improvement, and received reports on quality, safety and patient satisfaction at least once a year. The brief on-site assessments identified systematic variations, within and between countries, in structures and processes of governance and to document the uptake of best practice. Unacceptable variations in practice could be reduced, to the benefit of consumers and providers, by developing and publishing basic organisational standards relevant to all European states. The simple assessment criteria designed for this project could be developed into a practical tool for self-assessment, peer review or benchmarking of hospitals across national borders. This assessment, combined with explicit, relevant and achievable standards, could provide a vehicle to promote the voluntary uptake of best practice and consistency in quality and safety among hospitals in Europe.

Is patient-centredness in European hospitals related to existing quality improvement strategies? Analysis of a cross-sectional survey (MARQuIS study).

BACKGROUND: There is growing recognition of patients' contributions to setting objectives for their own care, improving health outcomes and evaluating care. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the extent to which European hospitals have implemented strategies to promote a patient-centred approach, and to assess whether these strategies are associated with hospital characteristics and the development of the hospital's quality improvement system. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of 351 European hospital managers and professionals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' rights, patient information and empowerment, patient involvement in quality management, learning from patients, and patient hotel services at the hospital and ward level were assessed. The hypothesis that the implementation of strategies to improve patient-centredness is associated with hospital characteristics, including maturity of the hospital's quality management system, was tested using binary logistic regression. RESULTS: In general, hospitals reported high implementation of policies for patients' rights (85.5%) and informed consent (93%), whereas strategies to involve patients (71%) and learn from their experience (66%) were less frequently implemented. For 13 out of 18 hospital strategies, institutions with a more developed quality improvement system consistently reported better results (percentage differences within maturity classification ranged from 12.4% to 46.6%). The strength of association between implementation of patient-centredness strategies and the quality improvement system, however, seemed lower at the ward than at the hospital level. Some associations (OR 2.1 to 5.1) disappeared or were weaker after adjustment for potential confounding variables (OR 2.2 to 3.7). CONCLUSIONS: Although quality improvement systems seem to be effective with regard to the implementation of selected patient-centredness strategies, they seem to be insufficient to ensure widespread implementation of patient-centredness throughout the organisation.

Implementation of patient safety strategies in European hospitals.

CONTEXT: This study is part of the Methods of Assessing Response to Quality Improvement Strategies (MARQuIS) research project on cross-border care, investigating quality improvement strategies in healthcare systems across the European Union (EU). AIM: To explore to what extent a sample of acute care European hospitals have implemented patient safety strategies and mechanisms and whether the implementation is related to the type of hospital. METHODS: Data were collected on patient safety structures and mechanisms in 389 acute care hospitals in eight EU countries using a web-based questionnaire. Subsequently, an on-site audit was carried out by independent surveyors in 89 of these hospitals to assess patient safety outputs. This paper presents univariate and bivariate statistics on the implementation and explores the associations between implementation of patient safety strategies and hospital type using the chi(2) test and Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Structures and plans for safety (including responsibilities regarding patient safety management) are well developed in most of the hospitals that participated in this study. The study found greater variation regarding the implementation of mechanisms or activities to promote patient safety, such as electronic drug prescription systems, guidelines for prevention of wrong patient, wrong site and wrong surgical procedure, and adverse events reporting systems. In the sample of hospitals that underwent audit, a considerable proportion do not comply with basic patient safety strategies--for example, using bracelets for adult patient identification and correct labelling of medication.

Impact of quality strategies on hospital outputs.

CONTEXT: This study was part of the Methods of Assessing Response to Quality Improvement Strategies (MARQuIS) research project on patients crossing borders, a study to investigate quality improvement strategies in healthcare systems across the European Union (EU). AIM: To explore the association between the implementation of quality improvement strategies in hospitals and hospitals' success in meeting defined quality requirements that are considered intermediate outputs of the care process. METHODS: Data regarding the implementation of seven quality improvement strategies (accreditation, organisational quality management programmes, audit and internal assessment of clinical standards, patient safety systems, clinical practice guidelines, performance indicators and systems for obtaining patients' views) and four dimensions of outputs (clinical, safety, patient-centredness and cross-border patient-centredness) were collected from 389 acute care hospitals in eight EU countries using a web-based questionnaire. In a second phase, 89 of these hospitals participated in an on-site audit by independent surveyors. Pearson correlation and linear regression models were used to explore associations and relations between quality improvement strategies and achievement of outputs. RESULTS: Positive associations were found between six internal quality improvement strategies and hospital outputs. The quality improvement strategies could be reasonably subsumed under one latent index which explained about half of their variation. The analysis of outputs concluded that the outputs can also be considered part of a single construct. The findings indicate that the implementation of internal as well as external quality improvement strategies in hospitals has beneficial effects on the hospital outputs studied here. CONCLUSION: The implementation of internal quality improvement strategies as well as external assessment systems should be promoted.

Learning from MARQuIS: future direction of quality and safety in hospital care in the European Union.

This article summarises the significant lessons to be drawn from, and the policy implications of, the findings of the Methods of Assessing Response to Quality Improvement Strategies (MARQuIS) project--a part of the suite of research projects intended to support policy established by the European Commission through its Sixth Framework Programme. The article first reviews the findings of MARQuIS and their implications for healthcare providers (and particularly for hospitals), and then addresses the broader policy implications for member states of the European Union (EU) and for the commission itself. Against the background of the European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme, it then outlines a number of future areas for research to inform policy and practice in quality and safety in Europe. The article concludes that at this stage, a unique EU-wide quality improvement system for hospitals does not seem to be feasible or effective. Because of possible future community action in this field, attention should focus on the use of existing research on quality and safety strategies in healthcare, with the aim of combining soft measures to accelerate mutual learning. Concrete measures should be considered only in areas for which there is substantial evidence and effective implementation can be ensured.

Volume and diagnosis: an approach to cross-border care in eight European countries.

OBJECTIVES: Mobility of patients is a pertinent issue on the European Union's agenda. This study aimed to estimate the volume and main diagnoses of cross-border care in eight European countries, in order to provide policy makers with background information about the nature of patient mobility in Europe. METHODS: This article reports the combined findings from three independent studies that compiled self-reported information on admissions data and main diagnoses from more than 200 hospitals in eight European countries. RESULTS: The average volume of cross-border patients accounted for less than 1% of total admissions in the hospitals studied here. Diseases of the circulatory system (mainly acute myocardial infarction) and fractures were the most common reasons for hospitalisation of European patients abroad. Deliveries and other diagnoses related to pregnancy, pneumonia, appendicitis and other diseases of the digestive system, aftercare procedures, and disorders of the eye and adnexa were also common diagnoses for this population. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals should reinforce their efforts to adapt the care provided to the needs of foreign patients in treatment areas that cover the most frequent pathologies identified in this population.