EASY-NET Program: Methods and Preliminary Results of an Audit and Feedback Intervention in the Emergency Care for Acute Myocardial Infarction in the Lazio Region, Italy.

Within the EASY-NET network program (NET-2016-02364191), Work Package 1 Lazio evaluates the effectiveness of a structured audit and feedback (A&F) intervention compared with the web-based regional periodic publication of indicators in improving the appropriateness and timeliness of emergency healthcare for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This work describes the A&F methodology and presents the results of the first feedback delivered. The intervention involves sending periodic reports via e-mail to participating hospitals. The feedback reports include a set of volume and quality (process and outcome) indicators, calculated by facility through the health information system of the Lazio Region and compared with regional mean, target values and values calculated for hospitals with similar volumes of activity. Health managers and clinicians of each participating hospital represent the "feedback recipients". They are invited to organize clinical and organizational audit meetings to identify possible critical issues in the care pathway and define, where necessary, improvement actions. A total of 16 facilities are involved. Twelve facilities present high volumes in all volume indicators, while three facilities present low volumes for each indicator. Concerning the quality indicators, four facilities do not present critical indicators or had average results, three facilities do not present critical indicators but show average results in at least one of the indicators and six facilities present a critical value for at least one of the indicators. The first report highlighted some critical issues in some facilities on several indicators. During the audit meetings, each facility analyzes these issues, defining appropriate improvement actions. The outcome of these actions will be monitored through subsequent reporting to support the continuous care quality improvement process.

COVID-19: yesterday, today and tomorrow. The quality of COVID-19 management and the evaluation of the "Health" chapter of the Recovery Plan.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic represented an unprecedented challenge for the healthcare world and the introduction of a new stronger and believable project plays a fundamental role for the quality of work and the provision of qualitative care. Aim: The survey provided by Italian Association for the Quality of Health and Social Care (ASIQUAS) aims to examines the impact of "Health" chapter included in the Recovery Plan, through the assessment of management quality of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Starting from a literature review, in September 2021, a web-based survey has been conducted and administered by e-mail. It has been taken into account measures widely used by different healthcare structures in order to analyze the projects implemented in the face of pandemic and to evaluate the new real possibility to invest funds in new healthcare structures and projects. Results: The survey consists of 19 multiple choices and respondents were from different types of structures, including regional departments and regional health agencies (1.4%), universities, research centers and scientific hospitalization and treatment institutes (IRCCS) (11%), hospitals and university polyclinics (34.2%), Local Health Authorities (39.7%), socio-health organizations and Others (13.7%). The pandemic has highlighted many vulnerabilities at both hospitals and territorial level. The major weaknesses revealed by the survey are mainly due to the lack of support from new staff units and poor availability of specific training tools for COVID-19 procedures. The Recovery Plan is still unclear with a lot of concern about the implementation and many limits of diffusion. Conclusions: It becomes essential to guarantee a new effective and interoperative model of integration. Today we can start more aware for the implementation of a system closer to everyone's needs, making shortcomings the new strength and starting point.

Definition of a tool to assess shared decision-making (SDM) on women with breast cancer: A value-based approach.

Background and Aims: In oncology, there is increasing talk of personalized treatment and shared decision-making (SDM), especially when multiple treatment options are available with different outcomes depending on patient preference. The present study aimed to define the set of main dimensions and relative tools to assess the Value brought to patients from a Breast Cancer's Clinical pathway structured according to a dynamic SDM framework. Methods: Starting from our previous systematic review of the literature, a deep search of the main evidence-based and already validated questionnaires was carried out. In the second phase, to corroborate this grid, a Delphi survey was conducted to assess each questionnaire identified for each dimension, against the following seven value-based criteria: Clinical Benefit, Safety, Care Team Well Being, Patient Reported Outcomes Measures, Green Oncology, Impact on Health Budget, and Genomic Profile. Results: The resulting 7-dimension questionnaire is composed of 72 questions. Of these, some quantitatively and objectively assess the evolution of the patient's disease state, whereas others aim to ask patients about their active involvement in decisions affecting them and to investigate whether they were free to explore their preferences. Furthermore, to frame the analyzed phenomenon at the right time, for each questionnaire section, the specific, evidence-based timing of administration is indicated. Conclusion: The resulting questionnaire is validated in its entirety and it is composed of a set of questions and relative time point for data collections to assess the Value brought to patients undertaking a Breast Cancer's Clinical pathway, structured according to a dynamic SDM framework. It constitutes a quantitative instrument to integrate patient centeredness with a personalized perspective in the care management of women with breast cancer.

Gov➔Value: How to combine reported quality experiences and patient-reported outcome measures. First results on vulvar cancer patients in an Italian Research Hospital.

Introduction: Vulvar cancer (VC) accounts for <1% of cancers affecting the female gender. Clinical Pathways (CP) and Clinical Outcomes Monitoring are useful for providing high-quality care to these patients. However, it is essential to integrate them with the patient's perspective according to Value-Based Healthcare paradigms. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are tools for assessing outcomes and experiences with health care from the patient's perspective. The aim of this paper is to collect and synthesize PROMs and main stakeholders' experience on the VC CP, according to a value-based approach. Materials and methods: To select the most appropriate instrument, a review was conducted on the main databases and official websites of specific institutions and organizations. In the second phase, a 2-round Delphi survey was conducted to assess the Reported Experience Measures (REMs) tool. Questions were evaluated according to four criteria (general relevance, evidence-based, measurability, actionability) and included if strong agreement was reached. A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was executed. Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega were computed. Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to compare ratings between groups. Descriptive statistics were performed for both PROMs and REMs instruments. Results: For PROMs assessment, EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire was selected and administered to 28 patients. Global Health Status/Quality of Life and Functional Scales Scores were high or very high, while symptoms scale reported low or medium scores. The final REMs consists of 22 questions for professionals and 16 for patients and caregivers. It was administered to 22 patients, 11 caregivers, 5 physicians, 2 nurses and 1 clinical senior manager. PCA identified 4 components. Scale reliability was acceptable (α = 0.75 95% CI: 0.61-0.85; ω = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.54, 0.82). A statistically significant difference between the patient/caregiver group and the professionals was found for items 8 (follow-up), 10 (perceived quality), 12 (safety), and 16 (climate) (p = 0.02; p = 0.03; p < 0.001; p < 0.001, respectively). Discussion: PROMs could provide new ways of intercepting patients' needs and feedback, thus acting on them. The proposed REMs tool would allow to detect information not available elsewhere, which, through Audit and feedback strategies, could lead to enhancement of healthcare experience, according to a value-based approach.

Audit and Feedback in the Hospitals of the Emergency Networks in the Lazio Region, Italy: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation of the State of Implementation.

Audit and Feedback (A&F) is an effective multidimensional strategy for improving the quality of care. The optimal methods for its implementation remain unclear. This study aimed to map the state of art of A&F strategies in the hospitals involved in a time-dependent emergency network. For these purposes, a structured questionnaire was defined and discussed within the research group. This consists of 29 questions in three sections: (1) characteristics of the structure, (2) internal feedback systems, and (3) external feedback systems. All structures involved in the network were invited to participate in the e-survey by indicating a Health Management representative and a clinical representative for the Cardiovascular (CaV) and/or for the Cerebrovascular area (CeV). Of 20 structures invited, a total of 13 (65%) responded to the survey, 11 for the CaV area and 8 for the CeV area. A total of 10 of 11 (91%) facilities for the CaV area and 8/11 (75%) for the CeV area reported that they perform A&F activities. All facilities perform at least one of the activities defined as "assimilating A&F procedures." The most frequent is the presentation and discussion of clinical cases (82% CaV and 88% CeV) and the least is the identification of responsible for improvement actions (45% CaV and 38% CeV). In 4/10 (40%) facilities for the CaV area and 4/8 (50%) for the CEV area, corrective actions are suggested or planned when the feedback is returned. These results confirm the need to define, in a synergistic way with the relevant stakeholders, an effective and agreed A&F intervention to improve the level of implementation of A&F strategies.