A multiphase, multicentre development and validation of two maturity tools assessing the implementation of the FlaQuM co-creation roadmap.

As part of the new Flanders Quality Model (FlaQuM) towards sustainable quality management systems, a co-creation roadmap with 6 primary drivers and 19 building blocks that guides healthcare organizations has been developed. Currently, no assessment tool is available to monitor hospitals' quality management systems implementation according to this co-creation roadmap. Therefore, we aimed to measure the maturity of the implementation of the FlaQuM co-creation roadmap in hospitals. A three-phase approach in co-design with 19 hospitals started with defining the scope, followed by establishing content validity through a literature review, involvement of content experts (n = 47), 20 focus groups with content experts (n = 79), and a Delphi round with healthcare quality managers (n = 19) to test the content validity index. Construct validity was assessed by confirmatory factor analyses and convergent validity by Spearman's ρ correlation coefficients. Based on 17 included existing maturity instruments and subcomponents of content experts, two maturity tools were developed according to the implementation of the FlaQuM co-creation roadmap: (i) a maturity matrix with 52 subcomponents and (ii) a co-creation scan with 19 statements. The overall scale-content validity index varied between 93.3% and 90.0% in terms of relevance and clarity, respectively. In a sample of 119 healthcare professionals, factor analyses revealed a six-factor structure and 16 (84.2%) of the 19 hypothesis for testing convergent validity between both maturity tools were statistically significant. Measuring the implementation of the FlaQuM co-creation roadmap and monitoring its maturity over time should be feasible by using these comprehensive maturity tools in hospitals. Results of both tools should be able to describe the current state of hospitals' implementation of the co-creation roadmap as basis for strategic improvement plans and next steps.

The determinants of expert opinion in the development of care pathways: insights from an exploratory cluster analysis.

BACKGROUND: We performed a secondary exploratory cluster analysis on the data collected from the validation phase of the study leading to the development of the model care pathway (CP) for Myasthenia Gravis (MG), in which a panel of 85 international experts were asked some characteristics about themselves and their opinion about the model CP. Our aim was to identify which characteristics of the experts play a role in the genesis of their opinion. METHODS: We extracted the questions probing an opinion and those describing a characteristic of the expert from the original questionnaire. We performed a multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) and a subsequent hierarchical clustering on principal component (HCPC) on the opinion variables, integrating the characteristic variables as supplementary (predicted). RESULTS: After reducing the dimensionality of the questionnaire to three dimensions we noticed that the not-appropriateness judgement of the clinical activities may overlap with the completeness one. From the HCPC it seems that the working setting of the expert may play a crucial role in determining the opinion about the setting of the sub-processes of MG: shifting from a cluster where the experts do not work in sub-specialist settings to one where the experts are working in them, the opinion changes accordingly from a mono-disciplinary setting to a multi-disciplinary one. Another interesting result is that the experience in neuromuscular diseases (NMD) measured in years and the expert typology (whether general neurologist or NMD expert) seem not to contribute significantly to the opinions. CONCLUSIONS: These findings might indicate a poor ability of the expert to discriminate what is not appropriate from what is not complete. Also, the opinion of the expert might be influenced by the working setting, but not by the experience in NMD (as measured in years).

In search of an international multidimensional action plan for second victim support: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Insights around second victims (SV) and patient safety has been growing over time. An overview of the available evidence is lacking. This review aims to describe (i) the impact a patient safety incident can have and (ii) how healthcare professionals can be supported in the aftermath of a patient safety incident. METHODS: A literature search in Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL was performed between 1 and 2010 and 26 November 2020 with studies on SV as inclusion criteria. To be included in this review the studies must include healthcare professionals involved in the aftermath of a patient safety incident. RESULTS: In total 104 studies were included. SVs can suffer from both psychosocial (negative and positive), professional and physical reactions. Support can be provided at five levels. The first level is prevention (on individual and organizational level) referring to measures taken before a patient safety incident happens. The other four levels focus on providing support in the aftermath of a patient safety incident, such as self-care of individuals and/or team, support by peers and triage, structured support by an expert in the field (professional support) and structured clinical support. CONCLUSION: The impact of a patient safety incident on healthcare professionals is broad and diverse. Support programs should be organized at five levels, starting with preventive actions followed by self-care, support by peers, structured professional support and clinical support. This multilevel approach can now be translated in different countries, networks and organizations based on their own culture, support history, structure and legal context. Next to this, they should also include the stage of recovery in which the healthcare professional is located in.

Measuring in-hospital quality multidimensionally by integrating patients', kin's and healthcare professionals' perspectives: development and validation of the FlaQuM-Quickscan.

BACKGROUND: Measuring quality is essential to drive improvement initiatives in hospitals. An instrument that measures healthcare quality multidimensionally and integrates patients', kin's and professionals' perspectives is lacking. We aimed to develop and validate an instrument to measure healthcare quality multidimensionally from a multistakeholder perspective. METHODS: A multi-method approach started by establishing content and face validity, followed by a multi-centre study in 17 Flemish (Belgian) hospitals to assess construct validity through confirmatory factor analysis, criterion validity through determining Pearson's correlations and reliability through Cronbach's alpha measurement. The instrument FlaQuM-Quickscan measures 'Healthcare quality for patients and kin' (part 1) and 'Healthcare quality for professionals' (part 2). This bipartite instrument mirrors 15 quality items and 3 general items (the overall quality score, recommendation score and intention-to-stay score). A process evaluation was organised to identify effective strategies in instrument distribution by conducting semi-structured interviews with quality managers. RESULTS: By involving experts in the development of quality items and through pilot testing by a multi-stakeholder group, the content and face validity of instrument items was ensured. In total, 13,615 respondents (5,891 Patients/kin and 7,724 Professionals) completed the FlaQuM-Quickscan. Confirmatory factor analyses showed good to very good fit and correlations supported the associations between the quality items and general items for both instrument parts. Cronbach's alphas supported the internal consistency. The process evaluation revealed that supportive technical structures and approaching respondents individually were effective strategies to distribute the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: The FlaQuM-Quickscan is a valid instrument to measure healthcare quality experiences multidimensionally from an integrated multistakeholder perspective. This new instrument offers unique and detailed data to design sustainable quality management systems in hospitals. Based on these data, hospital management and policymakers can set quality priorities for patients', kin's and professionals' care. Future research should investigate the transferability to other healthcare systems and examine between-stakeholders and between-hospitals variation.

A Breakthrough Improvement Collaborative Significantly Reduces Hospital Stay After Elective Colectomy for Cancer Across a Healthcare System.

OBJECTIVE: This multicenter study aimed to assess (1) the effect of an improvement collaborative on enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol adherence after elective colectomy and (2) the association between adherence and patient outcomes. BACKGROUND: ERAS pathways provide a framework to standardize care processes and improve postoperative outcomes in patients after colon surgery. Despite growing evidence of its effectiveness, adherence to these guidelines remains a challenge. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter collaborative was initiated throughout 11 hospitals in Flanders, Belgium. A structured audit tool was used to study patient outcomes and adherence to 12 ERAS components, defined by the collaborative. Three retrospective audits (based on patient record analysis) were conducted in 2017, 2019, and 2021, respectively. RESULTS: Overall, 740 patients were included (45.4% female; mean±SD age, 71±12 years). The overall adherence increased from 42.8% in 2017 to 58.4% in 2019 and 69.2% in 2021. Compared with low adherence, length of stay was increasingly reduced by 1.3 days for medium [95% confidence interval (95% CI): -2.5; 0.0], 3.6 days for high (95% CI: -4.9; -2.2), and up to 4.4 days for very high adherence (95% CI: -6.1; -2.7). Corresponding odds ratios for postoperative complications were 0.62 (95% CI: 0.33; 1.17), 0.19 (95% CI: 0.09; 0.43), and 0.14 (95% CI: 0.05; 0.39), respectively. No increase in 30-day readmissions was observed. CONCLUSIONS: A peer-constructed improvement collaborative effectively increases adherence to an ERAS protocol in individual hospitals. Across time, length of stay and postoperative complications decreased significantly, and a dose-response relationship was observed.

The evolving personal, professional and physical impact on healthcare professionals during three COVID-19 waves: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to huge pressure on not only healthcare systems, but also on healthcare professionals. OBJECTIVE: As the pandemic continues, the aim of this study is to evaluate how 10 reactions of healthcare professionals evolved during the first 18 months of COVID-19. METHODS: A repeated cross-sectional study was performed with eight measurement points between April 2020 and September 2021 in Belgium. Participants were asked how frequently (on a scale of 0-10) they experienced positive and negative reactions during normal circumstances and during past week, referred to as before and during COVID-19, respectively. These reactions were stress, fatigue, difficulty sleeping, muscle strain, hypervigilance, leaving profession, headache, doubting knowledge and skills, flashbacks and fear. RESULTS: In total, 13 308 respondents were included in our study. During both the first (March 2020) and second COVID-19 peak (November 2020), the measured personal, professional and physical reactions were significantly higher compared to before COVID-19. The third wave in April 2021 was shorter and less severe with regard to hospital admissions and deaths, yet an important impact on healthcare professionals could still be observed. 'Fatigue,' 'stress,' 'difficulty sleeping' and 'muscle strain' are the most worrying reactions in September 2021, which are increasing compared to the previous measurements. CONCLUSION: Our results showed that acute stress reactions decreased over time but that chronic stress reactions and professional reactions, such as 'intent to leave,' increased. Healthcare organizations and policy makers should realize that 18 months after the start of COVID-19 almost all of the measured reactions continue to be more prevalent than before COVID-19. Moreover, the continuous increase over the last three measurement periods of the number of healthcare professionals who want to leave their profession is alarming. Continuous follow-up of the personal, professional and physical reactions is more than necessary.

The cost of a first and second hospital-wide accreditation in Flanders, Belgium.

BACKGROUND: Hospital accreditation is a popular and widely used quality control and improvement instrument. Despite potential benefits, ques-tions are raised whether it constitutes appropriate use of hospitals' limited financial resources. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to calculate the cost of preparing for and undergoing a first and second accreditation by the Joint Commission International or Qualicor Europe in acute-care hospitals. METHOD: All (n = 53) acute-care hospitals in Flanders (Belgium) were invited to participate and report on the costs in preparing for and undergoing a first and/or second accreditation cycle. To measure costs, a questionnaire with six domains and 90 questions was developed based on literature review, policy documents and a multidisciplinary expert group. All costs were recalculated to 2020 euro to correct for inflation and reported as medians with interquartile range. RESULTS: A total of 25 hospitals (47%) participated in the study. Additional investments and direct operational costs for a first accreditation cycle amounted to 879.45 euro (interquartile range: 794.81) per bed and 3.8 full-time equivalent (FTE) per hospital additional new staff members were recruited for coordination and implementation of the trajectory. A second accreditation survey costed remarkably less with a total cost of extra investments and direct operational cost of 222.88 euro (interquartile range: 244.04) per bed and less investment in additional staff (1.50 FTE). Most of the costs were situated in consulting costs and investments in infrastructure. The median total extra cost (direct operational cost and additional investments) amounted to 0.2% of the hospital's operating income for a first accreditation cycle and 0.05% for a second cycle. CONCLUSION: A first accreditation cycle requires a strong financial commitment of hospitals, as many costs result from the preparation in the years prior to an accreditation survey. A second survey is less expensive for hospitals, but still requires a considerable effort in terms of budget and staff. Policy makers should be aware of these significant costs as hospitals are operating with public resources and budget is scarce. The identification of these costs is a necessary building block to evaluate cost-effectiveness of accreditation versus other quality improvement systems and the continuation of these accreditation systems and their costs needs further study and a thorough debate.

Overview on the target population and methods used in care pathway projects: A narrative review.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that the efficiency and effectiveness of care processes can be improved in all countries. Care pathways (CPs) are proposed as a method to improve the quality of care by reducing variation. During the last decades, CPs have been intensively used in practice. The objective of this study is to examine the study designs for investigating CPs, for which pathologies CPs are used and what the reported indicators to measure the impact of CPs are. METHODS: A narrative review of the literature published from 2015 to 2019 was performed. RESULTS: We identified 286 studies, of which 207 evaluated the impact of CPs, 33 were review articles, 29 studies described the development of a CP, 12 were study protocols and 5 opinion papers. The most frequently reported study design for studying the impact of a CP is pre-posttest (n = 82), followed by cross-sectional studies (n = 50). Oncology, cardiovascular disease and abdominal surgery are the domains with the highest numbers of studies evaluating the impact of CPs. Financial (n = 86), process (n = 76) and clinical indicators (n = 74) are the most frequently reported indicators while service (n = 12) and team indicators (n = 6) are less reported. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the relative low number of identified studies compared with the number of CP projects in organisations, we conclude that the CP knowledge is not only found in the literature. We, therefore, argue that (inter)national scientific societies should not only focus on searching and spreading evidence on the content of care but also enhance their knowledge sharing initiatives on the organisation of care processes.

Second victim support structures in anaesthesia: a cross-sectional survey in Belgian anaesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND: Anaesthesiologists are prone to patient safety situations after which second victim symptoms can occur. In international literature, a majority of these second victims indicated that they were emotionally affected in the aftermath of a patient safety incident (PSI) and received little institutional support after these events. OBJECTIVE: To study the current second victim support structures in anaesthesia departments in Belgium. METHODS: An observational cross-sectional survey. Belgian anaesthesiologists and anaesthesiologists in training were contacted through e-mail from May 27th until 15 July 2020. RESULTS: In total, 456 participants completed the online survey. 73.7% (n = 336) of the participants encountered a PSI during the last year of their medical practice. 80.9% (n = 368) of respondents answered that they do discuss incidents with their colleagues. 18.0% (n = 82) discussed all incidents. 19.3% (n = 88) admitted that these incidents are never discussed in their department. 15.4% of participants (n = 70) experienced or thought that the culture is negative during these PSI discussions. 17.3% (n = 79) scored the culture neutral. Anaesthesiologists who encountered a PSI in the last years scored the support of their anaesthesia department a mean score of 1.59 (ranging from -10 to +10). A significant correlation (P < 0.05) was found between the culture during the morbidity and mortality meetings, the support after the incidents and the perceived quality of the anaesthesia department. CONCLUSION: Of the participating anaesthesiologist in Belgium, 80.9% discussed some PSIs and 18.0% discussed all PSIs as a normal part of their staff functioning with an experienced positive or neutral culture during these meetings in 84.6%. Psychological safety within the anaesthesiology departments is globally good; however, it could and should be optimized. This optimization process warrants further investigations in the future.

Is a hospital quality policy based on a triad of accreditation, public reporting and inspection evidence-based? A narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Since 2009, hospital quality policy in Flanders, Belgium, is built around a quality-of-care triad, which encompasses accreditation, public reporting (PR) and inspection. Policy makers are currently reflecting on the added value of this triad. METHODS: We performed a narrative review of the literature published between 2009 and 2020 to examine the evidence base of the impact accreditation, PR and inspection, both individually and combined, has on patient processes and outcomes. The following patient outcomes were examined: mortality, length of stay, readmissions, patient satisfaction, adverse outcomes, failure to rescue, adherence to process measures and risk aversion. The impact of accreditation, PR and inspection on these outcomes was evaluated as either positive, neutral (i.e. no impact observed or mixed results reported) or negative. OBJECTIVES: To assess the current evidence base on the impact of accreditation, PR and inspection on patient processes and outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 69 studies, of which 40 were on accreditation, 24 on PR, three on inspection and two on accreditation and PR concomitantly. Identified studies reported primarily low-level evidence (level IV, n = 53) and were heterogeneous in terms of implemented programmes and patient populations (often narrow in PR research). Overall, a neutral categorization was determined in 30 articles for accreditation, 23 for PR and four for inspection. Ten of these recounted mixed results. For accreditation, a high number (n = 12) of positive research on adherence to process measures was discovered. CONCLUSION: The individual impact of accreditation, PR and inspection, the core of Flemish hospital quality, was found to be limited on patient outcomes. Future studies should investigate the combined effect of multiple quality improvement strategies.

COVID-19 is having a destructive impact on health-care workers' mental well-being.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may aggravate workplace conditions that impact health-care workers' mental health. However, it can also place other stresses on workers outside of their work. This study determines the effect of COVID-19 on symptoms of negative and positive mental health and the workforce's experience with various sources of support. Effect modification by demographic variables was also studied. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study, conducted between 2 April and 4 May 2020 (two waves), led to a convenience sample of 4509 health-care workers in Flanders (Belgium), including paramedics (40.6%), nurses (33.4%), doctors (13.4%) and management staff (12.2%). About three in four were employed in university and acute hospitals (29.6%), primary care practices (25.7%), residential care centers (21.3%) or care sites for disabled and mental health care. In each of the two waves, participants were asked how frequently (on a scale of 0-10) they experienced positive and negative mental health symptoms during normal circumstances and during last week, referred to as before and during COVID-19, respectively. These symptoms were stress, hypervigilance, fatigue, difficulty sleeping, unable to relax, fear, irregular lifestyle, flashback, difficulty concentrating, feeling unhappy and dejected, failing to recognize their own emotional response, doubting knowledge and skills and feeling uncomfortable within the team. Associations between COVID-19 and mental health symptoms were estimated by cumulative logit models and reported as odds ratios. The needed support was our secondary outcome and was reported as the degree to which health-care workers relied on sources of support and how they experienced them. RESULTS: All symptoms were significantly more pronounced during versus before COVID-19. For hypervigilance, there was a 12-fold odds (odds ratio 12.24, 95% confidence interval 11.11-13.49) during versus before COVID-19. Positive professional symptoms such as the feeling that one can make a difference were less frequently experienced. The association between COVID-19 and mental health was generally strongest for the age group 30-49 years, females, nurses and residential care centers. Health-care workers reported to rely on support from relatives and peers. A considerable proportion, respectively, 18 and 27%, reported the need for professional guidance from psychologists and more support from their leadership. CONCLUSIONS: The toll of the crisis has been heavy on health-care workers. Those who carry leadership positions at an organizational or system level should take this opportunity to develop targeted strategies to mitigate key stressors of health-care workers' mental well-being.

Peer support by interprofessional health care providers in aftermath of patient safety incidents: A cross-sectional study.

AIM: To investigate the health care professionals' preferences pertaining to support in the aftermath of patient safety incidents and potential variation thereof depending on the degree of harm. BACKGROUND: Peer support systems are available to support health care professionals in the aftermath of patient safety incidents. It is unclear which type of support is best offered by whom. METHODS: A cross-sectional study in 32 Dutch hospitals. RESULTS: In total, 2,362 nurses and 1,404 doctors indicated they were involved in patient safety incidents at any time during their career (86%). Less than 10% of health care providers had spoken with professional support, and less than 20% admitted a need to do so. They used different support. A higher degree of harm related to higher odds of desiring support. Respondents mainly wanted to understand what happened and how it can be prevented. CONCLUSION: The desired support of health care professionals in the aftermath of patient safety incidents depends on the level of harm. IMPLICATION FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Health care professionals seem to mostly rely on persons they are close with, and they mainly desire information related to the aftermath of patient safety incidents. This should be taken into account when support programmes are set up.

Prolonged mental health sequelae among doctors and nurses involved in patient safety incidents with formal complaints and lawsuits.

We evaluated the presence of prolonged mental health sequelae in the aftermath of a patient safety incident and the impact of a formal complaint or lawsuit on these mental health sequelae in 19 hospitals and 2635 nurses and doctors. Of 2635 respondents, 983 (37.3%) reported a complaint and 190 (7.2%) reported a lawsuit. In both doctors and nurses prolonged mental health sequelae reflecting a stressor-related disorder were highly prevalent, each well over 20% overall. They were consistently more prevalent in case of a formal complaint or lawsuit. Lawsuits showed 2-, 3- and 4-fold increases in prevalence of mental health sequelae.

Better hospital context increases success of care pathway implementation on achieving greater teamwork: a multicenter study on STEMI care.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether hospital context influences the effect of care pathway implementation on teamwork processes and output in STEMI care. DESIGN: A multicenter pre-post intervention study. SETTING: Eleven acute hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Cardiologists-in-chief, nurse managers, quality staff, quality managers and program managers reported on hospital context. Teamwork was rated by professional groups (medical doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, other) in the following departments: emergency room, catheterization lab, coronary care unit, cardiology ward and rehabilitation. INTERVENTION: Care pathway covering in-hospital care from emergency services to rehabilitation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital context was measured by the five dimensions of the Model for Understanding Success in Quality: microsystem, quality improvement team, quality improvement support, high-level organization, external environment. Teamwork process measures reflected teamwork between professional groups within departments and teamwork between departments. Teamwork output was measured through the level of organized care. Two-level regression analysis accounted for clustering of respondents within hospitals and assessed the influence of hospital context on the impact of care pathway implementation on teamwork. RESULTS: Care pathway implementation significantly improved teamwork processes both between professional groups (P < 0.001) and between departments (P < 0.001). Teamwork output also improved (P < 0.001). The effect of care pathway implementation on teamwork was more pronounced when the quality improvement team and quality improvement support and capacity were more positively reported on. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals can leverage the effect of quality improvement interventions such as care pathways by evaluating and improving aspects of hospital context.

Impact of care pathway implementation on interprofessional teamwork: An international cluster randomized controlled trial.

This study evaluates whether the implementation of an in-hospital care pathway (CP) improves interprofessional teamwork across countries and tests whether improved communications ("relational coordination") is the mechanism of action. A hospital-based cluster randomized controlled trial in Ireland, Belgium, Italy, and Portugal was performed. Fifty-six interprofessional teams caring for patients admitted with an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or for patients with a proximal femur fracture were included and randomly assigned to an intervention group (31 teams and 567 team members), where a CP was implemented, and a control group (25 teams and 417 team members) representing usual care. Multilevel regression and mediation analysis were applied. First, although no significant effect was found on our primary outcome relational coordination, our CP significantly improved several team inputs, team processes (team climate for innovation) and team output (the level of organized care, level of competence) indicators. Second, our team process indicator of team climate for innovation partially mediated the association between CP implementation and team output indicator of better level of organized care. In conclusion, a CP sets in motion various mechanisms that improve some but not all aspects of interprofessional teamwork. Relational coordination does not appear to be the mechanism by which team outputs are enhanced.

Teamwork and Adherence to Recommendations Explain the Effect of a Care Pathway on Reduced 30-day Readmission for Patients with a COPD Exacerbation.

This study aimed to increase our understanding of processes that underlie the effect of care pathway implementation on reduced 30-day readmission rate. Adherence to evidence-based recommendations, teamwork and burnout have previously been identified as potential mechanisms in this association. We conducted a secondary data analysis of 257 patients admitted with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation and 284 team members caring for these patients in 19 Belgian, Italian and Portuguese hospitals. Clinical measures included 30-day readmission and adherence to a specific set of five care activities. Teamwork measures included team climate for innovation, level of organized care and burnout (emotional exhaustion, level of competence and mental detachment). Care pathway implementation was significantly associated with better adherence and reduced 30-day readmission. Better adherence and higher level of competence were also related to reduced 30-day readmission. Only better adherence fully mediated the association between care pathway implementation and reduced 30-day readmission. Better team climate for innovation and level of organized care, although both improved after care pathway implementation, did not show any explanatory mechanisms in the association between care pathway implementation and reduced 30-day readmission. Implementation of a care pathway had an impact on clinical and team indicators. To reduce 30-day readmission rates, in the development and implementation of a care pathway, hospitals should measure adherence to evidence-based recommendations during the whole process, as this can give information regarding the success of implementation.

Recommended care received by geriatric hip fracture patients: where are we now and where are we heading?

INTRODUCTION: Despite the availability of clinical guidelines on the prevention and treatment of geriatric hip fractures, the percentage of recommended care received by patients is low. We conducted an importance-performance analysis for prioritizing interventions to improve the in-hospital management of these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A secondary data analysis was conducted on the in-hospital treatment of 540 geriatric hip fracture patients in 34 hospitals in Belgium, Italy, and Portugal. First, we assessed the level of expert consensus on the process indicators composing international guidelines on hip fracture treatment. Second, guideline adherence on in-hospital care was evaluated within and across hospitals. Third, an importance-performance analysis was conducted, linking expert consensus to guideline adherence. RESULTS: Level of expert consensus was high (above 75%) for 12 of 22 process indicators identified from the literature. There is large between and within hospital variation in guideline adherence for these indicators and for none of the 540 patients were all 22 process indicators adhered to. Importance-performance analysis demonstrated that three indicators that had a high level of expert consensus also had a high level of adherence (above 80%). Nine indicators, most of which have been previously linked to patient outcomes, had a high level of expert consensus but a consistently low level of adherence across hospitals and are identified as priority areas for improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline adherence for the treatment of geriatric hip fracture patients is remarkably suboptimal. Importance-performance analysis is a useful strategic approach to assist practitioners and healthcare managers to improve the quality of care.

Variation in care for surgical patients with colorectal cancer: protocol adherence in 12 European hospitals.

PURPOSE: Surgical care for patients with colorectal cancer has become increasingly standardized. The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol is a widely accepted structured care method to improve postoperative outcomes of patients after surgery. Despite growing evidence of effectiveness, adherence to the protocol remains challenging in practice. This study was designed to assess the adherence rate in daily practice and examine the relationship between the importance of interventions and adherence rate. METHODS: This international observational, cross-sectional multicenter study was performed in 12 hospitals in four European countries. Patients were included from January 1, 2014. Data was retrospectively collected from the patient record by the local study coordinator. RESULTS: A total of 230 patients were included in the study. Protocol adherence was analyzed for both the individual interventions and on patient level. The interventions with the highest adherence were antibiotic prophylaxis (95%), thromboprophylaxis (87%), and measuring body weight at admission (87%). Interventions with the lowest adherence were early mobilization-walking and sitting (9 and 6%, respectively). The adherence ranged between 16 and 75%, with an average of 44%. CONCLUSION: Our results show that the average protocol adherence in clinical practice is 44%. The variation on patient and hospital level is considerable. Only in one patient the adherence rate was >70%. In total, 30% of patients received 50% or more of the key interventions. A solid implementation strategy seems to be needed to improve the uptake of the ERAS pathway. The importance-performance matrix can help in prioritizing the areas for improvement.

An International Study of Adherence to Guidelines for Patients Hospitalised with a COPD Exacerbation.

Guideline adherence rates for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation are low. The aim of this study is to perform an importance-performance analysis as an approach for prioritisation of interventions by linking guidelines adherence rates to expert consensus rates for the in-hospital management of COPD exacerbation. We illustrate the relevance of such approach by describing variation in guideline adherence across indicators and hospitals. A secondary data analysis of patients with an acute COPD exacerbation admitted to Belgian, Italian and Portuguese hospitals was performed. Twenty-one process indicators were used to describe adherence to guidelines from patient record reviews. Expert consensus on the importance for follow-up of these 21 indicators was derived from a previous Delphi study. Three of the twenty-one indicators had high level of expert consensus and a high level of adherence. Eleven of the twenty-one indicators had high level of expert consensus but a low level of adherence. For none of the 378 patients included in this study were all process indicators adhered to, patients received 41.0% of the recommended care on average, and only 34.1% of the patients received 50% or more of the care they should receive. There was also a large variation within and between hospitals regarding the care received. This study confirms the findings of previous studies, indicating that COPD exacerbations are largely undertreated. Importance-performance analysis provides a decision-making tool for prioritising indicators. All hospitals in this study would benefit from having in place a quality framework for systematic follow-up of these indicators.

The "House of Trust". A framework for quality healthcare and leadership.

In healthcare, improvement leaders have been inspired by the frameworks from industry which have been adapted into control systems and certifications to improve quality of care for people. To address the challenge to regain trust in healthcare design and delivery, we propose a conceptual framework, i.e. the "House of Trust". This House brings together the Juran Trilogy, the emerging concept of co-production in quality management and the multidimensional definition of quality, which describes core values as an integral part of the system to deliver person- and kin-centered care. In the "House of Trust" patients, their kin, healthcare providers, executives and managers feel at home, with a sense of belonging. If we want to build a care organization that inspires and radiates confidence to all stakeholders, highlighting the basic interactions between front- and back-office is required. An organization with both well-organized back- and front-offices can enable all to benefit from the trust each of them needs and deserves. A quality system does not depend on government inspection and regulations nor on external accreditation to develop itself into a House of Trust. Success will only be achieved if all involved continuously question themselves about the technical dimensions of quality and their core values during the "moment of truth".