Inter-specialty collaboration in the formalization of a new foregut subspecialty.

Historical context and converging market conditions present a unique opportunity to study the factors contributing to the formalization of foregut, or upper gastrointestinal, surgery as a new subspecialty in United States healthcare. The aim of this study was to examine the justifications of those pursuing the formalization of a foregut subspecialty and to extract lessons for healthcare leaders on the evolving relationships between competing providers. This was a qualitative, cross-sectional study consisting of interviews, secondary survey data, and observation of society meetings between October 2018 and June 2019. Thirty interviews with healthcare professionals were conducted, transcribed, and analyzed for themes using qualitative coding software. Themes were correlated with observational field notes and archival data and compared against established social theories on professions and medical specialization. Analysis revealed that traditionally competing surgeons and gastroenterologists articulate a professional need to qualify foregut surgical expertise based on superior knowledge and outcomes, to define the allocation of certain tasks and procedures, and to foster collaboration across specialties. Converging market conditions precipitate individual and organizational decisions to pursue formal specialization. Participants in the formalization of this subspecialty should consider the history of professional competition and turf wars to achieve meaningful collaboration. Advocacy for multi-specialty societies and organizational movements could be a model for reduced conflict in other specialties as well.

Optimizing patient partnership in primary care improvement: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The need to expand and better engage patients in primary care improvement persists. PURPOSE: Recognizing a continuum of forms of engagement, this study focused on identifying lessons for optimizing patient partnerships, wherein engagement is characterized by shared decision-making and practice improvement codesign. METHODOLOGY: Twenty-three semistructured interviews with providers and patients involved in improvement efforts in seven U.S. primary care practices in the Academic Innovations Collaborative (AIC). The AIC aimed to implement primary care improvement, emphasizing patient engagement in the process. Data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Sites varied in their achievement of patient partnerships, encountering material, technical, and sociocultural obstacles. Time was a challenge for all sites, as was engaging a diversity of patients. Technical training on improvement processes and shared learning "on the job" were important. External, organizational, and individual-level resources helped overcome sociocultural challenges: The AIC drove provider buy-in, a team-based improvement approach helped shift relationships from providers and recipients toward teammates, and individual qualities and behaviors that flattened hierarchies and strengthened interpersonal relationships further enhanced "teamness." A key factor influencing progress toward transformative partnerships was a strong shared learning journey, characterized by frequent interactions, proximity to improvement decision-making, and learning together from the "lived experience" of practice improvement. Teams came to value not only patients' knowledge but also changes wrought by working collaboratively over time. CONCLUSION: Establishing practice improvement partnerships remains challenging, but partnering with patients on improvement journeys offers distinctive gains for high-quality patient-centered care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Engaging diverse patient partners requires significant disruption to organizational norms and routines, and the trend toward team-based primary care offers a fertile context for patient partnerships. Material, technical, and sociocultural resources should be evaluated not only for whether they overcome specific challenges but also for how they enhance the shared learning journey.

Gene drives as a response to infection and resistance.

Vector-borne infectious diseases continue to be a major threat to public health. Although some prevention and treatment modalities exist for these diseases, resistance to such modalities, exacerbated by global climate change, remains a fundamental challenge. Developments in genomic engineering technologies present a new front in battling vector-borne illnesses; however, there is a lack of consensus over the scope and consequences of these approaches. In this article, we use malaria as a case study to address the developments and controversies surrounding gene drives, a novel genomic engineering technology. We draw attention to the themes of infection control, resistance, and reversibility using a science and technology studies framework. Unlike other current prevention and treatment modalities, gene drives have the capacity to alter not only single organisms but also entire species and ecologies. Therefore, broader public and scientific engagement is needed to inform a more inclusive discussion between clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and society.

Caveats for high reliability in healthcare.

Purpose Given the pace of industry change and the rapid diffusion of high reliability organization (HRO) approaches, lags and divergences have arisen between research and practice in healthcare. The purpose of this paper is to explore several of these theory-practice gaps and propose implications for research and practice. Design/methodology/approach Classic and cutting-edge HRO literature is applied to analyze two industry trends: delivery system integration, and the confluence of patient-as-consumer and patient-centered care. Findings Highly reliable integrated delivery systems will likely function very differently from classic HRO organizations. Both practitioners and researchers should address conditions such as how a system is bounded, how reliable the system should be and how interdependencies are handled. Additionally, systems should evaluate the added uncertainty and variability introduced by enhanced agency on the part of patients/families in decision making and in processes of care. Research limitations/implications Dramatic changes in the sociotechnical environment are influencing the coupling and interactivity of system elements in healthcare. Researchers must address the maintenance of reliability across organizations and the migration of decision-making power toward patients and families. Practical implications As healthcare systems integrate, managers attempting to apply HRO principles must recognize how these systems present new and different reliability-related challenges and opportunities. Originality/value This paper provides a starting point for the advancement of research and practice in high-reliability healthcare by providing an in-depth exploration of the implications of two major industry trends.

A case for revisiting peer review: Implications for professional self-regulation and quality improvement.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement in healthcare has often been promoted as different from and more valuable than peer review and other professional self-regulation processes. In spite of attempts to harmonize these two approaches, the perception of dichotomous opposition has persisted. A sequence of events in the troubled California prison system fortuitously isolated workforce interventions from more typical quality improvement interventions. Our objectives were to (1) evaluate the relative contributions of professional accountability and quality improvement interventions to an observed decrease in population mortality and (2) explore the organizational dynamics that potentiated positive outcomes. METHODS: Our retrospective mixed-methods case study correlated time-series analysis of mortality with the timing of reform interventions. Quantitative and qualitative evidence was drawn from court documents, public use files, internal databases, and other archival documents. RESULTS: Change point analysis reveals with 98% confidence that a significant improvement in age-adjusted natural mortality occurred in 2007, decreasing from 138.7 per 100,000 in the 1998-2006 period to 106.4 in the 2007-2009 period. The improvement in mortality occurred after implementation of accountability processes, prior to implementation of quality improvement interventions. Archival evidence supports the positive impact of physician competency assessments, robust peer review, and replacement of problem physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that workforce accountability provides a critical quality safeguard, and its neglect in scholarship and practice is unjustified. As with quality improvement, effective professional self-regulation requires systemic implementation of enabling policies, processes, and staff resources. The study adds to evidence that the distribution of physician performance contains a heterogeneous left skew of dyscompetence that is associated with significant harm and suggests that professional self-regulation processes such as peer review can reduce that harm. Beyond their responsibility for direct harm, dyscompetent professionals can have negative impacts on group performance. The optimal integration of professional accountability and quality improvement systems merits further investigation.

The informed decisions toolbox: tools for knowledge transfer and performance improvement.

In recent years, spurred by developments in evidence-informed medicine, a movement to strengthen evidence-informed managerial decision making in healthcare organizations has emerged in the United States and in other countries. The drivers of this movement include demands by payers and consumer groups for improved quality of care, increased operational efficiency, and greater accountability from healthcare organizations. But numerous barriers to managers' use of evidence in decision making exist, including time pressures, perceived threats to autonomy, preference for colloquial knowledge based on individual experiences, difficulty accessing the relevant evidence base, reliance on external consultants (and others) to determine the quality of the information, and lack of resources. To help managers overcome these barriers, we developed the Informed Decisions Toolbox. It provides tools to help managers efficiently perform the six key steps in the evidence-informed approach to decision making: (1) framing the management question, (2) finding sources of information, (3) assessing the accuracy of the information, (4) assessing the applicability of the information, (5) assessing the actionability of the evidence, and (6) determining if the information is adequate. To build an organizational environment conducive to evidence-informed decision making, we suggest four leadership-driven strategies: (1) recognize and respond to the growing demand for accountability as a strategic issue, (2) establish organizational structures and processes for knowledge transfer, (3) build a questioning organizational culture, and (4) build organizational research capabilities. With organizational support, managers who use the tools presented in the Informed Decisions Toolbox will be able to take control of the decision-making process, will be less reliant on colloquial evidence and consultants, and will be better able to improve the performance of their organizations.