Embracing multiple aims in healthcare improvement and innovation.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare and other industries have to manage and coordinate a number of different aims and longer-term ambitions. They must maintain quality, manage costs, support and retain the workforce, manage regulatory demands and consider wider societal objectives. These aims are all legitimate, but they are not necessarily aligned, neither in their time frame nor in their nature. Conflicts between aims have a profound influence on the implementation of safety and quality improvement and wider innovation system change. Healthcare leaders understand that these aims may conflict, but the extent and nature of such conflicts have been underestimated. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to support medical and nursing leadership and executives in the complex task of managing multiple aims in relation to improvement and innovation. METHODS: We drew on our experience and the wider industrial and healthcare literature to find examples of studies and improvement projects with multiple aims and examples of innovation and change in which conflicting aims were apparent. We sought to identify principles that would enable the management of parallel aims and practical strategies that might facilitate implementation. RESULTS: We argue that almost all improvement and innovation in healthcare should address parallel aims, actively seek to articulate these aims and manage potential conflicts between them. We propose four underlying principles to support a more productive approach to the identification and management of parallel aims: embrace multiple aims, consider both short- and long-term aims and ambitions, consider the wider societal context and appreciate that all changes take place within an evolving, dynamic context. In terms of practical actions, we identified five key strategies: (i) identify and monitor the parallel aims and accept that some will conflict; (ii) slow down to accommodate the natural flexibility of the system; (iii) think both the short term and the long term; (iv) expect and endeavour to anticipate some unintended consequences and (v) resist downgrading the project to partial implementation. CONCLUSIONS: We have argued that most improvement and innovation, unlike controlled trials, should consider multiple aims. We set out some broad principles and practices to reduce conflict and suggest avenues to manage conflicts and support positive synergies. We suggest that if this is not done, conflicts are much more likely to arise, which will be detrimental to the change process. Articulating the multiple aims and actively seeking to manage them in parallel will promote a more flexible and productive approach to innovation and change.

Coping with more people with more illness. Part 2: new generation of standards for enabling healthcare system transformation and sustainability.

In Part 2 of this two-part contribution made on behalf of the Innovation and Systems Change Working Group of the International Society for Quality in Health Care (ISQua), we continue the argument for refashioning health systems in response to ageing and other pressures. Massive ageing in many countries and accompanying technological, fiscal and systems changes are causing the tectonic plates of healthcare to shift in ways not yet fully appreciated. In response, while things remain uncertain, we nevertheless have to find ways to proceed. We propose a strategy for stakeholders to pursue, of key importance and relevance to the ISQua: to harness flexible standards and external assessment in support of needed change. Depending on how they are used, healthcare standards and accreditation can promote, or hinder, the changes needed to create better healthcare for all in the future. Standards should support people's care needs across the life cycle, including prevention and health promotion. New standards that emphasise better coordination of care, those that address the entire healthcare journey and standards that reflect and predict technological changes and support new models of care can play a part. To take advantage of these opportunities, governance bodies, external assessment agencies and other authorities will need to be less prescriptive and better at developing more flexible standards that apply to the entire health journey, incorporating new definitions of excellence and acceptability. The ISQua welcomes playing a leadership role.

Coping with more people with more illness. Part 1: the nature of the challenge and the implications for safety and quality.

Health systems are under more pressure than ever before, and the challenges are multiplying and accelerating. Economic forces, new technology, genomics, AI in medicine, increasing demands for care-all are playing a part, or are predicted to increasingly do so. Above all, ageing populations in many parts of the world are exacerbating the disease burden on the system and intensifying the requirements to provide effective care equitably to citizens. In this first of two companion articles on behalf of the Innovation and Systems Change Working Group of the International Society for Quality in Health Care (ISQua), in consultation with representatives from over 40 countries, we assess this situation and discuss the implications for safety and quality. Health systems will need to run ahead of the coming changes and learn how to cope better with more people with more chronic and acute illnesses needing care. This will require collective ingenuity, and a deep desire to reconfigure healthcare and re-engineer services. Chief amongst the successful strategies, we argue, will be preventative approaches targeting both physical and psychological health, paying attention to the determinants of health, keeping people at home longer, experimenting with new governance and financial models, creating novel incentives, upskilling workforces to fit them for the future, redesigning care teams and transitioning from a system delivering episodic care to one that looks after people across the life cycle. There are opportunities for the international community to learn together to revitalise their health systems in a time of change and upheaval.

Improving the safety climate in hospitals by a vignette-based analysis of adverse events: a cluster randomised study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of a vignette-based analysis of adverse events (AEs) on the safety climate (SC) of care units. DESIGN: Prospective, open, cluster (a unit) randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Eighteen acute care units of seven hospitals in France. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare providers who worked in the units. INTERVENTION: Vignette-based analyses of AEs were conducted with unit's providers once per month for six consecutive months. The AEs were real cases that occurred in other hospitals. The hospital risk manager conducted each analysis as follows: analysis of the immediate and root causes of the AE; assessment of the care unit's vulnerabilities and existing barriers in the occurrence of an identical AE and search for solutions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: SC was measured using the French version of the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture questionnaire. The primary outcome was the difference in the 'Organisational learning and continuous improvement' dimension score, from before to after the analyses. RESULTS: Median participation rate in the analyses was 20% (range: 7-45%). Before intervention, the response rate to the SC survey was 80% (n = 210) in the intervention group and 73% (n = 191) in the control group. After intervention, it was 59% (n = 141) and 63% (n = 148), respectively. The dimension score evolved differently for the groups from before to after intervention (intervention: +10.2 points ±8.8; control: -3.0 points ±8.5, P = 0.04). Side effects were not measured. CONCLUSIONS: Vignette-based analysis was associated with the improvement of the perception of participants regarding their institution's capacity for organisational learning and continuous improvement.

Preparing national health systems to cope with the impending tsunami of ageing and its associated complexities: Towards more sustainable health care.

Healthcare systems across the world are experiencing increased financial, organizational and social pressures attributable to a range of critical issues including the challenge of ageing populations. Health systems need to adapt, in order to sustainably provide quality care to the widest range of patients, particularly those with chronic and complex diseases, and especially those in vulnerable and low-income groups. We report on a workshop designed to tackle such issues under the auspices of ISQua, with representatives from Argentina, Australia, Canada, Columbia, Denmark, Emirates, France, Ireland, Jordan, Qatar, Malaysia, Norway, Oman, UK, South Africa and Switzerland. We discuss some of the challenges facing healthcare systems in countries ageing rapidly, to those less so, and touch on current and future reform options.

Delays in diagnosis of paediatric cancers: a systematic review and comparison with expert testimony in lawsuits.

Delayed diagnosis of paediatric cancers is reported regularly and is a source of remorse for physicians and parents and a leading cause of malpractice claims. We did a systematic review of information about the distribution, determinants, and consequences of time to diagnosis of paediatric malignancies and compared these findings with those of court-appointed expert witnesses in malpractice claims in Canada and France. Time to diagnosis varied widely between tumour types in the 98 relevant studies (medians ranged from 2-260 weeks) without any significant decrease with time. Determinants of a long delay in diagnosis included older age, qualification of the first physician contacted, non-specific symptoms, histological type, and tumour localisation. Delayed diagnosis was associated with poor outcome for retinoblastoma and possibly for leukaemia, nephroblastoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma (data were insufficient for definitive conclusions). It was not associated with an adverse outcome for most CNS tumours, osteosarcoma or Ewing's sarcoma, and, paradoxically, was frequently associated with better outcomes than was short time to diagnosis in these cancers. A third of the court-appointed experts provided testimony concordant with the medical literature. The relations between delay in diagnosis and outcome are complex and probably depend more on tumour biology than on parental or medical factors.

Health services under pressure: a scoping review and development of a taxonomy of adaptive strategies.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to develop a taxonomy of pressures experienced by health services and an accompanying taxonomy of strategies for adapting in response to these pressures. The taxonomies were developed from a review of observational studies directly assessing care delivered in a variety of clinical environments. DESIGN: In the first phase, a scoping review of the relevant literature was conducted. In the second phase, pressures and strategies were systematically coded from the included papers, and categorised. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Scopus) and reference lists from recent reviews of the resilient healthcare literature. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were included from the resilient healthcare literature, which used descriptive methodologies to directly assess a clinical environment. The studies were required to contain strategies for managing under pressure. RESULTS: 5402 potential articles were identified with 17 papers meeting the inclusion criteria. The principal source of pressure described in the studies was the demand for care exceeding capacity (ie, the resources available), which in turn led to difficult working conditions and problems with system functioning. Strategies for responding to pressures were categorised into anticipatory and on-the-day adaptations. Anticipatory strategies included strategies for increasing resources, controlling demand and plans for managing the workload (efficiency strategies, forward planning, monitoring and co-ordination strategies and staff support initiatives). On-the-day adaptations were categorised into: flexing the use of existing resources, prioritising demand and adapting ways of working (leadership, teamwork and communication strategies). CONCLUSIONS: The review has culminated in an empirically based taxonomy of pressures and an accompanying taxonomy of strategies for adapting in response to these pressures. The taxonomies could help clinicians and managers to optimise how they respond to pressures and may be used as the basis for training programmes and future research evaluating the impact of different strategies.

Adverse events in medicine: easy to count, complicated to understand, and complex to prevent.

The performance of patient safety initiatives has not met expected targets for reasons that are gradually being understood. They have been too hospital-centered and too process- and "silo"-driven in their search for the causes of adverse events (AEs). Information technology could help overcome many obstacles, but only if the tools developed are based on a relevant safety model. We have applied the distinction between easy, complicated, and complex problems and strategies in healthcare to changes that need to be made in the detection and analysis of AEs. We propose a triple shift: (i) adopting an outcome-driven rather than a process-driven policy when defining and counting AEs (relatively easy), (ii) applying a patient- and not silo-driven approach and extending the timeframe when analyzing AEs (more difficult), and (iii) taking a systemic view of all care delivered to a patient during their life-span in order to erect barriers against the risks identified (highly complex).

How to do no harm: empowering local leaders to make care safer in low-resource settings.

In a companion paper, we showed how local hospital leaders could assess systems and identify key safety concerns and targets for system improvement. In the present paper, we consider how these leaders might implement practical, low-cost interventions to improve safety. Our focus is on making immediate safety improvements both to directly improve patient care and as a foundation for advancing care in the longer-term. We describe a 'portfolio' approach to safety improvement in four broad categories: prioritising critical processes, such as checking drug doses; strengthening the overall system of care, for example, by introducing multiprofessional handovers; control of known risks, such as only using continuous positive airway pressure when appropriate conditions are met; and enhancing detection and response to hazardous situations, such as introducing brief team meetings to identify and respond to immediate threats and challenges. Local clinical leaders and managers face numerous challenges in delivering safe care but, if given sufficient support, they are nevertheless in a position to bring about major improvements. Skills in improving safety and quality should be recognised as equivalent to any other form of (sub)specialty training and as an essential element of any senior clinical or management role. National professional organisations need to promote appropriate education and provide coaching, mentorship and support to local leaders.

The "zero risk" concept for hospital-acquired infections: a risky business!

Nosocomial infections represent a serious public health problem. Some recent studies, most of which used strong educational programs, showed a dramatic decrease in the rates of nosocomial infections, particularly catheter-related infections in the intensive care unit. Thus, the concept of "zero risk" is flourishing in the recent literature, and some insurance networks have decided to limit reimbursement for treatment of some of the health care-associated infections, on the grounds that most of them are preventable. This viewpoint article emphasizes the risk of such a position and enumerates the reasons why such a philosophy could be counterproductive. In particular, this philosophy does not fit with the concept of self-declaration of severe adverse events and could push clinicians to underreport those events.

Le Programme d'amélioration continue du travail en équipe pour sécuriser la prise en charge du patient.

PROGRAMME FOR THE CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OF TEAM WORK TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF PATIENT CARE.: The analysis of the causes of care-related adverse events shows that in order to improve safety, human and organisational factors must be taken into account, and action taken to target team work. Based on this observation, the French National Health Authority designed and tested with volunteer teams the Programme for the Continuous Improvement of Team Work, between 2013 and 2016. This programme provides professionals with a series of tools and methods to improve they way they work in a team. Eventually, the implementation of the programme will be a requirement for the certification of healthcare facilities.

Are "Human Factors" the Primary Cause of Complications in the Field of Implant Dentistry?

Complications in medicine and dentistry are usually analyzed from a purely technical point of view. Rarely is the role of human behavior or judgment considered as a reason for adverse outcomes. When the role of human factors is considered, these are usually described in general terms rather than specifically identifying the factors responsible for an adverse event. The impact of cognitive and behavioral factors in the explanation of adverse events has been studied in other high-stakes areas such as aviation and nuclear power. Specific protocols have been developed to reduce rates of human error, and, where human error is unavoidable, to lessen its impact. This approach has dramatically reduced the incidence of accidents in these fields. This article aims to review how a similar approach may prove valuable in the reduction of complications in implant dentistry.

Safety analysis over time: seven major changes to adverse event investigation.

BACKGROUND: Every safety-critical industry devotes considerable time and resource to investigating and analysing accidents, incidents and near misses. The systematic analysis of incidents has greatly expanded our understanding of both the causes and prevention of harm. These methods have been widely employed in healthcare over the last 20 years but are now subject to critique and reassessment. In this paper, we reconsider the purpose and value of incident analysis and methods appropriate to the healthcare of today. MAIN TEXT: The primary need for a revised vision of incident analysis is that healthcare itself is changing dramatically. People are living longer, often with multiple co-morbidities which are managed over very long timescales. Our vision of safety analysis needs to expand concomitantly to embrace much longer timescales. Rather than think only in terms of the prevention of specific incidents, we need to consider the balance of benefit, harm and risks over long time periods encompassing the social and psychological impact of healthcare as well as physical effects. We argued for major changes in our approach to the analysis of safety events: assume that patients and families will be partners in investigation and where possible engage them fully from the beginning, examine much longer time periods and assess contributory factors at different time points in the patient journey, be more proportionate and strategic in analysing safety issues, seek to understand success and recovery as well as failure, consider the workability of clinical processes as well as deviations from them and develop a much more structured and wide-ranging approach to recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Previous methods of incident analysis were simply adopted and disseminated with little research into the concepts, methods, reliability and outcomes of such analyses. There is a need for significant research and investment in the development of new methods. These changes are profound and will require major adjustments in both practical and cultural terms and research to explore and evaluate the most effective approaches.

Five system barriers to achieving ultrasafe health care.

Although debate continues over estimates of the amount of preventable medical harm that occurs in health care, there seems to be a consensus that health care is not as safe and reliable as it might be. It is often assumed that copying and adapting the success stories of nonmedical industries, such as civil aviation and nuclear power, will make medicine as safe as these industries. However, the solution is not that simple. This article explains why a benchmarking approach to safety in high-risk industries is needed to help translate lessons so that they are usable and long lasting in health care. The most important difference among industries lies not so much in the pertinent safety toolkit, which is similar for most industries, but in an industry's willingness to abandon historical and cultural precedents and beliefs that are linked to performance and autonomy, in a constant drive toward a culture of safety. Five successive systemic barriers currently prevent health care from becoming an ultrasafe industrial system: the need to limit the discretion of workers, the need to reduce worker autonomy, the need to make the transition from a craftsmanship mindset to that of equivalent actors, the need for system-level (senior leadership) arbitration to optimize safety strategies, and the need for simplification. Finally, health care must overcome 3 unique problems: a wide range of risk among medical specialties, difficulty in defining medical error, and various structural constraints (such as public demand, teaching role, and chronic shortage of staff). Without such a framework to guide development, ongoing efforts to improve safety by adopting the safety strategies of other industries may yield reduced dividends. Rapid progress is possible only if the health care industry is willing to address these structural constraints needed to overcome the 5 barriers to ultrasafe performance.

Insurance statements from French anaesthesiologists and intensivists: A database analysis.

BACKGROUND: From its origins, anaesthesia is a leading medical specialty for improving patient safety. However, perioperative adverse events remain frequent and may be preventable in 50% of cases. We conducted a collaborative retrospective study analysis of the insurance-database of the MACSF-Sou Medical insurance company to assess the perioperative risk. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective study, including all the statements declared by anaesthesiologists to the MACSF-Sou Medical insurance company. A description of risk in perioperative medicine was performed by the assessment of these statements by three experts member of the SFAR. All the statements concerning regional anaesthesia and dental injuries were excluded. RESULTS: Eight hundred and seventy statements were analyzed. The patients involved were predominantly women (sex-ratio: 0.86), with a mean age of 56 years (±18). Three hundred and fifteen cardiac arrests, 157 severe systemic complications, 340 moderate complications and 106 conflicts were analyzed. Most of the events were revealed postoperatively (79.3%) and almost half of them after the discharge of the postanesthetic care unit. The medical consequences were considered as serious. Death followed 35.9% of the events declared. Relative or true hypovolaemia and stroke were responsible for a large part of postoperative mortality and morbidity. CONCLUSION: Collaborating with insurance companies allows a relevant approach of the perioperative risk. The study highlighted the importance of the delayed complications and is a plea for a more intense implication of anaesthesia in the postoperative care with the aim of improving patient safety.

Insurance statements related to regional anaesthesia: A French database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events in the perioperative period remain frequent, occurring in about 30% of the hospital admission and may be avoidable in nearly 50% of cases. Improving safety needs a continuous assessment of the risk level. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data from the MACSF-Sou medical insurance company, including all the statements declared by anaesthesiologists and intensivists, were analyzed retrospectively by three experts, senior anaesthesiologists, of the SFAR, the French society of anesthesia and intensive care (Société française d'anesthésie réanimation) to describe the risk associated with regional anaesthesia. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-four events were analyzed, involving young patients (mean age of 48.3±15years; sex ratio: 0.57). The most involved surgical specialties were: orthopaedic surgery (61%) and obstetric surgery (13.4%). Reported events were predominantly peripheral nerve injury (64.6%). Mechanical complications of puncture (pneumothorax, haemothorax, complications of axial punctures) accounted for approximately 15% of events, infection for 11%. The revelation was predominant in the postoperative course (137 cases, 83.6%), particularly after the release of the operating room in over 47% of cases, including 39 cases (22%) after discharge from the hospital. CONCLUSION: Collaboration with insurance companies allows a relevant approach of the perioperative risk. In most cases, liability related to regional anaesthesia involved young patients in the perioperative course of scheduled surgery. One of the future challenges in managing, the anaesthetic and perioperative risks should be to invest more accurately the postoperative care both in the hospital or ambulatory settings.

Patient safety and the control of time in primary care: A review of the French tempos framework by the LINNEAUS collaboration on patient safety in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The tempos framework provides GPs with a flexible and practical guide to reflect on their organization and practices in the analysis of adverse events and supplement existing classification systems. The tempos framework specifies five timescales that need to be managed by physicians: the disease's tempo (unexpected rapid changes, slow reaction to treatment); the office's tempo (day-to-day agenda and interruptions); the patient's tempo (time to express symptoms, compliance, and emotion); the system's tempo (time for appointments, exams, and feedback); and the time to access to knowledge. OBJECTIVE: This paper reviews the tempos framework and two studies that underpin its conceptual development. METHODS: Two databases were used. RESULTS: The use of the framework as a mechanism for analysing insurance claims is described. A comparison of using the tempos framework and standard patient safety classifications for analysing insurance claims is also described and showed that the concordance among coders was better for the tempos framework. The tempos framework fits closely with key principles of general practice and has potentially high relevance for analysing a patient's journey and continuity of care. The tempos framework seems most useful for GPs when analysing adverse events in their practice. CONCLUSION: Further work needs to be done to assess its generalizability and to formally assess its validity and reliability.