Method to share learning in real time at scientific meetings: lessons from the IHI-BMJ International Conference on Quality and Safety.

BACKGROUND: Capturing and disseminating key learnings on emerging themes for conference participants is challenging, yet also presents a significant opportunity to distill, share and discuss learning in real time with conference organisers and attendees. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) and British Medical Journal (BMJ) collaborate annually to convene a Health Quality and Safety conference attracting 1000 to 3000 attendees each year. AIM: To test a learning system that harvested and synthesised the key lessons shared by conference participants at the 2022 IHI-BMJ Gothenburg Forum, and to disseminate this content. METHODS: Twelve invited Forum attendees collected and shared their 'breakthrough learnings' via electronic survey. Three IHI team members synthesised the participants' responses into themes that were shared and refined in real time at an in-person Forum session including 35 additional participants. RESULTS: Participants shared four learning themes: collaboration and co-production, trust, meaningful communication about data, and broadening the scope of the Science of Improvement field to multi-disciplinary and multi-system approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Collection of key learning on emerging topics of interest to the health system improvement community is feasible and yielded information both for dissemination and real-time learning. While not representing the full scope of the conference learnings, the content resonated with an additional group of reviewers at the conclusion of the conference and has guided planning for the next annual meeting. This approach may be helpful in capturing key themes for discussion and planning by similar improvement communities.

Impact of a patient-specific co-designed COPD care scorecard on COPD care quality: a quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: The evidence that sharing mass care quality data with health service users improves care is weak. AIMS: We hypothesised that providing patients with individualised care quality data would drive improvements to the care received by those patients. METHODS: Together with patients who had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), we co-designed a quality score card mapping indicators derived from National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) quality standards against matched data taken from their general practice clinical records. All 640 COPD patients from 10 practices had improvements in these indicators before and 3 months after the intervention compared with 595 COPD patients in 10 control practices. RESULTS: Significant improvements in referral to pulmonary rehabilitation (P=0.03) and confirmation of diagnosis with spirometry (P=0.001) were seen in the intervention compared with the control practice population (P<0.001). Increases in the provision of self-management plans were seen in both the groups. No improvement was seen in other indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Although the study is not able to prove a direct cause and effect, there is sufficient evidence presented to warrant the larger-scale evaluation of co-designed, personalised, quality score cards for COPD patients used as a tool to enhance care quality.

Understanding quality improvement at scale in general practice: a qualitative evaluation of a COPD improvement programme.

BACKGROUND: A growing body of knowledge exists to guide efforts to improve the organisation and delivery of health care, most of which is based on work carried out in hospitals. It is uncertain how transferable this knowledge is to primary care. AIM: To understand the enablers and constraints to implementing a large-scale quality improvement programme in general practice, designed to improve care for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study of 189 general practices in a socioeconomically and ethnically-mixed, urban area in east London, UK. METHOD: Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with people leading the programme and 17 in-depth interviews with those participating in it. Participants were local health system leaders, clinicians, and managers. A theoretical framework derived from evidence-based guidance for improvement programmes was used to interpret the findings. A complex improvement intervention took place with social and technical elements including training and mentorship, guidance, analytical tools, and data feedback. RESULTS: Practice staff wanted to participate in and learn from well-designed collaborative improvement projects. Nevertheless, there were limitations in the capacities and capabilities of the workforce to undertake systematic improvement, significant problems with access to and the quality of data, and tensions between the narrative-based generalist orientation of many primary care clinicians and the quantitative single-disease orientation that has characterised much of the quality improvement movement to date. CONCLUSION: Improvement guidance derived largely from hospital-based studies is, for the most part, applicable to improvement efforts in primary care settings, although large-scale change in general practice presents some particular challenges. These need to be better understood and addressed if improvement initiatives are to be effective.

From harm to hope and purposeful action: what could we do after Francis?

Responses to the reports on the inquiry into Mid Staffordshire have resulted in calls from politicians, NHS leaders and the public to improve care across the NHS in England. However, the substance of what needs to be done remains unclear. In this paper, we offer seven key 'ingredients' required to sustain improvement of care, supported by evidence drawn from published literature. We believe that empowering and upskilling the front-line workforce in understanding and implementing improvement techniques, supported by changes at system and policy level and reinforced by what leaders say and do, will result in sustainable benefit for patients and families, as well as greater satisfaction for staff.

Managing pulmonary nontuberculous mycobacterial infection. time for a patient-centered approach.

The incidence of nontuberculous mycobacteria is increasing worldwide. However, the evidence base for clinical management comprises mostly expert opinion, case series, and few randomized clinical trials. Most currently recommended treatment regimens entail prolonged use of multiple antimicrobial agents associated with multiple self-limited and persistent potential adverse effects, including irreversible impairments of hearing, vision, and kidney function. Yet, little is known about how treatment impacts an individual patient's overall health status. Current treatment guidelines, although of undoubted value, are constrained by these limitations. Here we call for new studies that reassess recommendations for medical management of pulmonary nontuberculous mycobacteria infections, in particular Mycobacterium avium-intracellulare complex and Mycobacterium abscessus complex. We propose pragmatic, person-centered outcome measures that might be used in clinical assessments and new research studies, including patient-reported experience measures and patient-reported outcome measures. This will enable patients and their health-care providers to make clinical management decisions that derive from a realistic view of what they can hope to achieve from treatment.

Impact on clinical and cost outcomes of a centralized approach to acute stroke care in London: a comparative effectiveness before and after model.

BACKGROUND: In July 2010 a new multiple hub-and-spoke model for acute stroke care was implemented across the whole of London, UK, with continuous specialist care during the first 72 hours provided at 8 hyper-acute stroke units (HASUs) compared to the previous model of 30 local hospitals receiving acute stroke patients. We investigated differences in clinical outcomes and costs between the new and old models. METHODS: We compared outcomes and costs 'before' (July 2007-July 2008) vs. 'after' (July 2010-June 2011) the introduction of the new model, adjusted for patient characteristics and national time trends in mortality and length of stay. We constructed 90-day and 10-year decision analytic models using data from population based stroke registers, audits and published sources. Mortality and length of stay were modelled using survival analysis. FINDINGS: In a pooled sample of 307 patients 'before' and 3156 patients 'after', survival improved in the 'after' period (age adjusted hazard ratio 0.54; 95% CI 0.41-0.72). The predicted survival rates at 90 days in the deterministic model adjusted for national trends were 87.2% 'before' % (95% CI 86.7%-87.7%) and 88.7% 'after' (95% CI 88.6%-88.8%); a relative reduction in deaths of 12% (95% CI 8%-16%). Based on a cohort of 6,438 stroke patients, the model produces a total cost saving of £5.2 million per year at 90 days (95% CI £4.9-£5.5 million; £811 per patient). CONCLUSION: A centralized model for acute stroke care across an entire metropolitan city appears to have reduced mortality for a reduced cost per patient, predominately as a result of reduced hospital length of stay.

What is a quality improvement project?

This article outlines the why, what and how of quality improvement with the aim of encouraging readers to move 'beyond audit' to undertake high calibre quality improvement projects within their daily work. It also provides a framework for presenting, publishing and disseminating quality improvement findings.