Initial development of a self-assessment approach for coproduction value creation by an international community of practice.

BACKGROUND: Coproduction offers a new way of conceptualizing healthcare as a service that is co-created by people (health professionals and people seeking health services) rather than a product that is generated by providers or health systems and delivered to patients. This offers new possibilities for those introducing and testing changes, and it enables additional ways of creating value. Fjeldstad and colleagues describe the architecture of several kinds of value creating systems: (i) Chain; (ii) Shop; (iii) Network and (iv) Access. An international Value Creating Business Model Community of practice (VCBM CoP) was formed by the International Coproduction of Health Network and explored these types of systems and developed a self-assessment guide for health systems to use to assess value. METHODS: An international community of practice comprising leaders, clinicians, patients and finance specialists representing 12 health systems from four countries (USA, UK, Israel and Sweden) met monthly for 1 year and used a semi-structured process to iteratively refine and adapt Fjeldstad's model for use in healthcare and develop a draft self-assessment guide. The process concluded with initial focus group user experience sessions with six health systems. RESULTS: The community of practice successfully completed a 1-year journey of discovery, development and learning, resulting in two products: (1) a full-version self-assessment guide (detailed) and (2) an abbreviated 'short-form' of the guide. Initial focus-group results suggest that there is initial perceived feasibility, acceptability and utility of the guides and that further development and research is reasonable to pursue. Results suggest significant variation and context specificity in the use of the guide, simple and complex knowledge transfer applications in use, and the need for the development of simple and technology supported versions for use in the future. CONCLUSION: The VCBM CoP has successfully completed a 1-year collaborative learning cycle, resulting in the development of a self-assessment guide that is now ready for additional investigation using formal research methods. The CO-VALUE study has been designed to build on the work of the CoP and includes qualitative and quantitative assessment phases and a concept mapping study.

COproduction VALUE creation in healthcare service (CO-VALUE): an international multicentre protocol to describe the application of a model of value creation for use in systems of coproduced healthcare services and to evaluate the initial feasibility, utility and acceptability of associated system-level value creation assessment approaches.

INTRODUCTION: Coproduction introduces a fundamental shift in how healthcare service is conceptualised. The mechanistic idea of healthcare being a 'product' generated by the healthcare system and delivered to patients is replaced by that of a service co-created by the healthcare system and the users of healthcare services. Fjeldstad et al offer an approach for conceptualising value creation in complex service contexts that we believe is applicable to coproduction of healthcare service. We have adapted Fjeldstad's value creation model based on a detailed case study of a renal haemodialysis service in Jonkoping, Sweden, which demonstrates coproduction characteristics and key elements of Fjeldstad's model. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We propose a five-part coproduction value creation model for healthcare service: (1) value chain, characterised by a standardised set of processes that serve a commonly occurring need; (2) value shop, which offers a customised response for unique cases; (3) a facilitated value network, which involves groups of individuals struggling with similar challenges; (4) interconnection between shop, chain and network elements and (5) leadership. We will seek to articulate and assess the value creation model through the work of a community of practice comprised of a diverse international workgroup with representation from executive, financial and clinical leaders as well as other key stakeholders from multiple health systems. We then will conduct pilot studies of a qualitative self-assessment process in participating health systems, and ultimately develop and test quantitative measures for assessing coproduction value creation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Health Institutional Review Board (D-HH IRB) as a minimal risk research study. Findings and scholarship will be disseminated broadly through continuous engagement with health system stakeholders, national and international academic presentations and publications and an internet-based electronic platform for publicly accessible study information.

Networked health care: Rethinking value creation in learning health care systems.

Creating better value in health care service today is very challenging. The social pressure to do so is real for every health care system and its leadership. Real benefit has been achieved in manufacturing sector work by the use of "value-chain" thinking, which assumes that the work is a series of linked processes necessary to make a product. For those activities in health care systems that are similar, this model may be very helpful. Attempts to "install" the value chain widely in health care systems have, however, been frustrating. As a result, well-meaning leaders seeking better value have resorted to programs of cost reduction, rather than service redesign. Professionals have not been very happy or willing participants. The work of health care service invites an expanded model of value creation, one that better matches the work. This paper proposes a networked architecture that can mobilize and integrate the resources of health care professionals, interested patients, family, and other community members in the delivery and improvement of health care systems. It also suggests how this value-creation architecture might contribute to research and the development of new knowledge. Two cases illustrate the proposed architecture and its implications for system design and practice, technology development, and roles and responsibilities of all actors involved in health care systems. We believe that this model better fits the need of making and improving health care services. This expanded understanding of how value is created invites attention by senior leaders, by those attempting to facilitate the improvement of current systems, by patients and clinicians involved in the daily work of health care service coproduction, by those charged with the preparation and formation of future professionals, by those who measure and conduct research in health care services, and by those leading policy, payment, and reimbursement systems.

The Department of Veterans Affairs National Quality Scholars Fellowship Program: experience from 10 years of training quality scholars.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Quality Scholars Fellowship Program (VAQS) was established in 1998 as a postgraduate medical education fellowship to train physicians in new methods of improving the quality and safety of health care for veterans and the nation. The VAQS curriculum is based on adult learning theory, with a national core curriculum of face-to-face components, technologically mediated distance learning components, and a unique local curriculum that draws from the strengths of regional resources. VAQS has established strong ties with other VA programs. Fellows' research and quality improvement projects are integrated with local and regional VA leaders' priorities, enhancing the relevance and visibility of the fellows' efforts and promoting recruitment of fellows to VA positions. VAQS has enrolled 98 fellows since 1999; 75 have completed the program and 24 are currently enrolled. Fellowship graduates have pursued a variety of career paths: 17% are continuing training (most in VA), 31% hold a VA faculty/staff position, 66% are academic faculty, and 80% conduct clinical or research work related to health care improvement. Graduates have held leadership positions in VA, Department of Defense, academic medicine, and public health agencies. Combining knowledge about the improvement of health care with adult learning strategies, distance learning technologies, face-to-face meetings, local mentorship, and experiential projects has been successful in improving care in VA and preparing physicians to participate in, study, and lead the improvement of health care quality and safety.

Clinical microsystems, part 1. The building blocks of health systems.

BACKGROUND: Wherever, however, and whenever health care is delivered-no matter the setting or population of patients-the body of knowledge on clinical microsystems can guide and support innovation and peak performance. Many health care leaders and staff at all levels of their organizations in many countries have adapted microsystem knowledge to their local settings. CLINICAL MICROSYSTEMS: A PANORAMIC VIEW: HOW DO CLINICAL MICROSYSTEMS FIT TOGETHER? As the patient's journey of care seeking and care delivery takes place over time, he or she will move into and out of an assortment of clinical microsystems, such as a family practitioner's office, an emergency department, and an intensive care unit. This assortment of clinical microsystems-combined with the patient's own actions to improve or maintain health--can be viewed as the patient's unique health system. This patient-centric view of a health system is the foundation of second-generation development for clinical microsystems. LESSONS FROM THE FIELD: These lessons, which are not comprehensive, can be organized under the familiar commands that are used to start a race: On Your Mark, Get Set, Go! ... with a fourth category added-Reflect: Reviewing the Race. These insights are intended as guidance to organizations ready to strategically transform themselves. CONCLUSION: Beginning to master and make use of microsystem principles and methods to attain macrosystem peak performance can help us knit together care in a fragmented health system, eschew archipelago building in favor of nation-building strategies, achieve safe and efficient care with reliable handoffs, and provide the best possible care and attain the best possible health outcomes.

Using a Malcolm Baldrige framework to understand high-performing clinical microsystems.

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES AND METHOD: The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) provides a set of criteria for organisational quality assessment and improvement that has been used by thousands of business, healthcare and educational organisations for more than a decade. The criteria can be used as a tool for self-evaluation, and are widely recognised as a robust framework for design and evaluation of healthcare systems. The clinical microsystem, as an organisational construct, is a systems approach for providing clinical care based on theories from organisational development, leadership and improvement. This study compared the MBNQA criteria for healthcare and the success factors of high-performing clinical microsystems to (1) determine whether microsystem success characteristics cover the same range of issues addressed by the Baldrige criteria and (2) examine whether this comparison might better inform our understanding of either framework. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Both Baldrige criteria and microsystem success characteristics cover a wide range of areas crucial to high performance. Those particularly called out by this analysis are organisational leadership, work systems and service processes from a Baldrige standpoint, and leadership, performance results, process improvement, and information and information technology from the microsystem success characteristics view. Although in many cases the relationship between Baldrige criteria and microsystem success characteristics are obvious, in others the analysis points to ways in which the Baldrige criteria might be better understood and worked with by a microsystem through the design of work systems and a deep understanding of processes. Several tools are available for those who wish to engage in self-assessment based on MBNQA criteria and microsystem characteristics.

Preparing the personal physician for practice (P(4)): redesigning family medicine residencies: new wine, new wineskins, learning, unlearning, and a journey to authenticity.

The family medicine community has come together in the Future of Family Medicine Project in an attempt to be clear about its work and values and to address the frustrations of both its own practitioners and the public. A new model has been proposed, offering several attractive features for both patients and practitioners. The project has generated momentum around the notion that it is really possible to redesign family medicine residency programs. This article reviews assumptions about the redesign and 10 interventions in 3 categories. The categories are both familiar and new, and knowledge, skills, and attitudes are reframed. The interventions include learning portfolios, a curriculum that goes beyond rotations, becoming explicit about locally useful knowledge, getting discretion and discipline right, linking evaluations to system improvement, attention to the science of clinical practice, simulation, validating resident feelings, educating to mastery, and attention to group and individual formation.

Publicly reporting comprehensive quality and cost data: a health care system's transparency initiative.

BACKGROUND: Transparency in health care, including the public reporting of health care results, is an expanding and unstoppable phenomenon. Health care systems have an opportunity to: (1) be proactive and accountable for the care they provide, (2) help patients learn more about their condition as a supplement to understanding the performance measures, and (3) use public reporting to foster process of care and outcome improvement initiatives. An overview is provided of the first 22 months of a transparency initiative at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center (DHMC). LAUNCHING THE TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE: An interdisciplinary operations group works with the various clinical programs--both providers and patients--to identify what quality and cost measures are most desired by patients and what measures are the focus of the clinical program's internal measurement and reporting processes. The measures are presented on the DHMC Web site, with access to additional resources, such as clinical decision aids. DISCUSSION: A variety of factors are important to the transparency initiative--senior leaders' perceptions, risk management issues, resources required for the design and maintenance of the initiative, and developing both methodological protocols and technical systems.

Microsystems in health care: Part 6. Designing patient safety into the microsystem.

BACKGROUND: This article explores patient safety from a microsystems perspective and from an injury epidemiological perspective and shows how to embed safety into a microsystem's operations. MICROSYSTEMS PATIENT SAFETY SCENARIO: Allison, a 5-year-old preschooler with a history of "wheezy colds," and her mother interacted with several microsystems as they navigated the health care system. At various points, the system failed to address Allison's needs. The Haddon matrix provides a useful framework for analyzing medical failures in patient safety, setting the stage for developing countermeasures. CASE STUDY: The case study shows the types of failures that can occur in complex medical care settings such as those associated with pediatric procedural sedation. Six patient safety principles, such as "design systems to identify, prevent, absorb, and mitigate errors," can be applied in a clinical setting. In response to this particular case, its subsequent analysis, and the application of microsystems thinking, the anesthesiology department of the Children's Hospital at Dartmouth developed the PainFree Program to provide optimal safety for sedated patients. CONCLUSION: Safety is a property of a microsystem and it can be achieved only through thoughtful and systematic application of a broad array of process, equipment, organization, supervision, training, simulation, and team-work changes.

Microsystems in health care: Part 3. Planning patient-centered services.

BACKGROUND: Strategic focus on the clinical microsystems--the small, functional, frontline units that provide most health care to most people--is essential to designing the most efficient, population-based services. The starting place for designing or redesigning of clinical microsystems is to evaluate the four P's: the patient subpopulations that are served by the microsystem, the people who work together in the microsystem, the processes the microsystem uses to provide services, and the patterns that characterize the microsystem's functioning. GETTING STARTED: DIAGNOSING AND TREATING A CLINICAL MICROSYSTEM: Methods and tools have been developed for microsystem leaders and staff to use to evaluate the four P's--to assess their microsystem and design tests of change for improvement and innovation. PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER: Based on its assessment--or diagnosis--a microsystem can help itself improve the things that need to be done better. Planning services is designed to decrease unnecessary variation, facilitate informed decision making, promote efficiency by continuously removing waste and rework, create processes and systems that support staff, and design smooth, effective, and safe patient care services that lead to measurably improved patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: The design of services leads to critical analysis of the resources needed for the right person to deliver the right care, in the right way, at the right time.

Microsystems in health care: Part 1. Learning from high-performing front-line clinical units.

BACKGROUND: Clinical microsystems are the small, functional, front-line units that provide most health care to most people. They are the essential building blocks of larger organizations and of the health system. They are the place where patients and providers meet. The quality and value of care produced by a large health system can be no better than the services generated by the small systems of which it is composed. METHODS: A wide net was cast to identify and study a sampling of the best-quality, best-value small clinical units in North America. Twenty microsystems, representing different component parts of the health system, were examined from December 2000 through June 2001, using qualitative methods supplemented by medical record and finance reviews. RESULTS: The study of the 20 high-performing sites generated many best practice ideas (processes and methods) that microsystems use to accomplish their goals. Nine success characteristics were related to high performance: leadership, culture, macro-organizational support of microsystems, patient focus, staff focus, interdependence of care team, information and information technology, process improvement, and performance patterns. These success factors were interrelated and together contributed to the microsystem's ability to provide superior, cost-effective care and at the same time create a positive and attractive working environment. CONCLUSIONS: A seamless, patient-centered, high-quality, safe, and efficient health system cannot be realized without the transformation of the essential building blocks that combine to form the care continuum.

Knowledge for improvement: who will lead the learning?

If we wish to improve the results of a system, what is needed to help health professionals learn about the redesign of that system? To create learning experiences that will attract good health professionals, a special blend of practical insight and critical thinking is required. To enjoy good standing in the academy, these leaders must be able to design, conduct, and disseminate knowledge-building activities subject to peer review. This is the story of the development of the United States Veteran's Health Administration Quality Scholars Program from those who designed and formed it to prepare health professional teachers and academics.

A curriculum for training quality scholars to improve the health and health care of veterans and the community at large.

In 1998, the Veterans Health Administration invested in the creation of the Veterans Administration National Quality Scholars Fellowship Program (VAQS) to train physicians in new ways to improve the quality of health care. We describe the curriculum for this program and the lessons learned from our experience to date. The VAQS Fellowship program has developed a core improvement curriculum to train postresidency physicians in the scholarship, research, and teaching of the improvement of health care. The curriculum covers seven domains of knowledge related to improvement: health care as a process; variation and measurement; customer/beneficiary knowledge; leading, following, and making changes in health care; collaboration; social context and accountability; and developing new, locally useful knowledge. We combine specific knowledge about the improvement of health care with the use of adult learning strategies, interactive video, and development of learner competencies. Our program provides insights for medical education to better prepare physicians to participate in and lead the improvement of health care.