Population assessment of health system performance in 16 countries.

Objective: To demonstrate how the new internationally comparable instrument, the People's Voice Survey, can be used to contribute the perspective of the population in assessing health system performance in countries of all levels of income. Methods: We surveyed representative samples of populations in 16 low-, middle- and high-income countries on health-care utilization, experience and confidence during 2022-2023. We summarized and visualized data corresponding to the key domains of the World Health Organization universal health coverage framework for health system performance assessment. We examined correlation with per capita health spending by calculating Pearson coefficients, and within-country income-based inequities using the slope index of inequality. Findings: In the domain of care effectiveness, we found major gaps in health screenings and endorsement of public primary care. Only one in three respondents reported very good user experience during health visits, with lower proportions in low-income countries. Access to health care was rated highest of all domains; however, only half of the populations felt secure that they could access and afford high-quality care if they became ill. Populations rated the quality of private health systems higher than that of public health systems in most countries. Only half of respondents felt involved in decision-making (less in high-income countries). Within countries, we found statistically significant pro-rich inequalities across many indicators. Conclusion: Populations can provide vital information about the real-world function of health systems, complementing other system performance metrics. Population-wide surveys such as the People's Voice Survey should become part of regular health system performance assessments.

Measuring people's views on health system performance: Design and development of the People's Voice Survey.

Todd Lewis and co-authors discuss development and use of the People's Voice Survey for health system assessment.

Clinical leadership and coping strategies in times of COVID-19: observational study with health managers in Mendoza.

BACKGROUND: The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic required an immediate response to the healthcare challenges it posed. This study was conducted to identify actions that helped healthcare professionals to overcome the initial impact in Mendoza (Argentina). METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out in a non-random sample of managers and staff of the public health system of Mendoza (Argentina) (n = 134). An ad-hoc and voluntary survey was carried out with 5 multi-response questions that combined questions referring to the management of the pandemic at the organizational level with others referring to coping at the individual level. The survey questions were formulated based on the results of six focus groups that were conducted previously. Descriptive frequency analysis was performed. RESULTS: 60 people agreed to participate and 45 answered the full questionnaire. At both the organizational and individual level, there was consensus with at least 50% of votes. The most outstanding at the organizational level was "Prioritize the need according to risk" and at the individual level it was "Support from family or friends", being also the most voted option in the whole questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The responses that emerged for coping with COVID-19 must be seen as an opportunity to identify strategies that could be effective in addressing future crisis situations that jeopardize the system's response capacity. Moreover, it is essential to retain both changes at the organizational level (e.g., new protocols, multidisciplinary work, shift restructuring, etc.) and coping strategies at the individual level (e.g., social support, leisure activities, etc.) that have proven positive outcomes.

Quality improvement collaborative to optimize heart failure care in patients from a network of clinics in Argentina during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Heart failure (HF) is a major clinical and public health problem associated with significant mortality, morbidity, and health-care costs. Despite the existence of evidence-based guidelines for the optimal treatment of HF, the quality of care remains suboptimal. Our aim was to increase the use a care bundle in 50% of enrolled subjects during their hospitalization and discharge and to reduce their readmission for HF causes by 10%. We conducted an uncontrolled before-after study in eight hospitals in Argentina to evaluate the effect of a quality improvement intervention on the use of an HF care bundle in patients with HF New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II-III. The HF bundle of care included medication, continuum of care, lifestyle habits, and predischarge examinations. Training and follow-up of multidisciplinary teams in each center were performed through learning sessions and plan-do-study-act improvement cycles. Data collectors reviewed bundle compliance in the health records of recruited patients after their hospital discharge and verified readmissions through phone calls to patients within 30-40 days after discharge. We recruited 200 patients (83 before and 127 during the intervention phase), and bundle compliance increased from 9.6% to 28.3% [odds ratio 3.71, 95% confidence interval (8.46; 1.63); P = .002]. Despite a slow improvement during the first months, bundle compliance gained momentum near the end of the intervention surpassing 80%. We observed a non-significant decreased readmission rate within 30 days of discharge due to HF in the postintervention period [8.4% vs. 5.5%, odds ratio 0.63, 95% CI (1.88; 0.21); P = .410]. Qualitative analysis showed that members of the intervention teams acknowledged the improvement of work organization and standardization of care, teamwork, shared mental model, and health record completeness as well as the utility of training fellows. Despite the challenges related to the pandemic, better care of patients with HF NYHA Class II-III was possible through simple interventions and collaborative work. Graphical abstract.

Reducing medication errors for adults in hospital settings.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors are preventable events that may cause or lead to inappropriate medication use or patient harm while the medication is in the control of the healthcare professional or patient. Medication errors in hospitalised adults may cause harm, additional costs, and even death. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of interventions to reduce medication errors in adults in hospital settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers on 16 January 2020.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and interrupted time series (ITS) studies investigating interventions aimed at reducing medication errors in hospitalised adults, compared with usual care or other interventions. Outcome measures included adverse drug events (ADEs), potential ADEs, preventable ADEs, medication errors, mortality, morbidity, length of stay, quality of life and identified/solved discrepancies. We included any hospital setting, such as inpatient care units, outpatient care settings, and accident and emergency departments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. Where necessary, we extracted and reanalysed ITS study data using piecewise linear regression, corrected for autocorrelation and seasonality, where possible.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 65 studies: 51 RCTs and 14 ITS studies, involving 110,875 participants. About half of trials gave rise to 'some concerns' for risk of bias during the randomisation process and one-third lacked blinding of outcome assessment. Most ITS studies presented low risk of bias. Most studies came from high-income countries or high-resource settings. Medication reconciliation -the process of comparing a patient's medication orders to the medications that the patient has been taking- was the most common type of intervention studied. Electronic prescribing systems, barcoding for correct administering of medications, organisational changes, feedback on medication errors, education of professionals and improved medication dispensing systems were other interventions studied. Medication reconciliation Low-certainty evidence suggests that medication reconciliation (MR) versus no-MR may reduce medication errors (odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.74; 3 studies; n=379). Compared to no-MR, MR probably reduces ADEs (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.80; 3 studies, n=1336 ; moderate-certainty evidence), but has little to no effect on length of stay (mean difference (MD) -0.30 days, 95%CI -1.93 to 1.33 days; 3 studies, n=527) and quality of life (MD -1.51, 95%CI -10.04 to 7.02; 1 study, n=131).  Low-certainty evidence suggests that, compared to MR by other professionals, MR by pharmacists may reduce medication errors (OR 0.21, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.48; 8 studies, n=2648) and may increase ADEs (OR 1.34, 95%CI 0.73 to 2.44; 3 studies, n=2873). Compared to MR by other professionals, MR by pharmacists may have little to no effect on length of stay (MD -0.25, 95%CI -1.05 to 0.56; 6 studies, 3983). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that this intervention probably has little to no effect on mortality during hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95%CI 0.57 to 1.7; 2 studies, n=1000), and on readmissions at one month (RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.14; 2 studies, n=997); and low-certainty evidence suggests that the intervention may have little to no effect on quality of life (MD 0.00, 95%CI -14.09 to 14.09; 1 study, n=724).  Low-certainty evidence suggests that database-assisted MR conducted by pharmacists, versus unassisted MR conducted by pharmacists, may reduce potential ADEs (OR 0.26, 95%CI 0.10 to 0.64; 2 studies, n=3326), and may have no effect on length of stay (MD 1.00, 95%CI -0.17 to 2.17; 1 study, n=311).  Low-certainty evidence suggests that MR performed by trained pharmacist technicians, versus pharmacists, may have little to no difference on length of stay (MD -0.30, 95%CI -2.12 to 1.52; 1 study, n=183). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Low-certainty evidence suggests that MR before admission may increase the identification of discrepancies compared with MR after admission (MD 1.27, 95%CI 0.46 to 2.08; 1 study, n=307). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that multimodal interventions probably increase discrepancy resolutions compared to usual care (RR 2.14, 95%CI 1.81 to 2.53; 1 study, n=487). Computerised physician order entry (CPOE)/clinical decision support systems (CDSS) Moderate-certainty evidence shows that CPOE/CDSS probably reduce medication errors compared to paper-based systems (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.31 to 1.79; 2 studies, n=88).  Moderate-certainty evidence shows that, compared with standard CPOE/CDSS, improved CPOE/CDSS probably reduce medication errors (OR 0.85, 95%CI 0.74 to 0.97; 2 studies, n=630). Low-certainty evidence suggests that prioritised alerts provided by CPOE/CDSS may prevent ADEs compared to non-prioritised (inconsequential) alerts (MD 1.98, 95%CI 1.65 to 2.31; 1 study; participant numbers unavailable). Barcode identification of participants/medications Low-certainty evidence suggests that barcoding may reduce medication errors (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.59 to 0.79; 2 studies, n=50,545). Reduced working hours Low-certainty evidence suggests that reduced working hours may reduce serious medication errors (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.63 to 1.09; 1 study, n=634). However, the CI is compatible with important beneficial and detrimental effects. Feedback on prescribing errors Low-certainty evidence suggests that feedback on prescribing errors may reduce medication errors (OR 0.47, 95%CI 0.33 to 0.67; 4 studies, n=384). Dispensing system Low-certainty evidence suggests that dispensing systems in surgical wards may reduce medication errors (OR 0.61, 95%CI 0.47 to 0.79; 2 studies, n=1775). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests that, compared to usual care, medication reconciliation, CPOE/CDSS, barcoding, feedback and dispensing systems in surgical wards may reduce medication errors and ADEs. However, the results are imprecise for some outcomes related to medication reconciliation and CPOE/CDSS. The evidence for other interventions is very uncertain. Powered and methodologically sound studies are needed to address the identified evidence gaps. Innovative, synergistic strategies -including those that involve patients- should also be evaluated.

The COVID-19 pandemic: A call to action for health systems in Latin America to strengthen quality of care.

The Covid-19 and other recent pandemics has highlighted existing weakness in health systems across the Latin-America and the Caribbean (LAC) region to effectively prepare for and respond to Public Health Emergencies. It has been stated that quality of care will be among the most influential factors on Covid 19 mortality rates and low systems performance is the common case in these countries. More comprehensive and system level strategies are required to address the challenges. These must focus on redesigning and strengthening health systems to make them more resilient to the changing needs of populations and based on quality improvement methods that have shown rigorously evaluated positive effects in previous local and regional experiences. A call to action is being made by the Latin American Consortium for Quality, Patient Safety and Innovation (CLICSS) and they provide specific recommendations for decision makers.

Development of physical activity and food built environment quality indicators for chronic diseases in Argentina.

Although obesity and non-communicable disease (NCD) prevention efforts to-date have focused mainly on individual level factors, the social and physical environments in which people live are now widely recognized as important social determinants of health. Obesogenic environments promote higher dietary energy intakes and sedentary behaviors, thus contributing to the obesity/NCD burden. To develop quality indicators (QIs) for measuring food and physical activity (PA)-built environments in municipalities. A literature review was conducted. Based on the best practices identified from this review, a draft set of candidate QI was retrieved. The initial 67 QIs were then evaluated by a modified Delphi panel of multidisciplinary health professionals (n = 40) to determine their relevance, validity, and feasibility in 3 rounds of voting and threaded discussion using a modified RAND/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methodology. Response rate for the panel was 89.4%. All final 42 QIs were rated as highly relevant, valid, and feasible (median rating ≥ 7 on a 1-9 scale), with no significant disagreement. The final QI set addresses for the PA domain: (i) promotion of PA; and (ii) improvements in the environment to strengthen the practice of PA; and for Food environment domain: (i) promotion of healthy eating; (ii) access to healthy foods; and (iii) promotion of responsible advertising. We generated a set of indicators to evaluate the PA and food built environment, which can be adapted for use in Latin American and other low- and middle-income countries.

The built environment has a considerable effect on health indicators such as physical activity, eating behavior, and community. There is considerable research evidence demonstrating a direct relationship between our built environments and our health. In Argentina, the Healthy Municipalities and Communities Program focuses in health promotion interventions. It was developed to seek collaboration among community members, local government authorities and other stakeholders in order to improve quality of life. However, up to date, there has not been a homogenous measure to evaluate how well a particular locality or a whole municipality supports the health and wellbeing its residents. The proposed study aims to develop a set of local valid and common measures in order to evaluate what is happening within a particular municipality. A designated group of local experts will select a set of final measures trough out an iterative multistage process in order to combine opinion into group consensus. We will ask the panel to rate, discuss and re-rate the proposed measures (based on the existing evidence). This will study provide an evaluative tool to inform policy making and program implementation, and to guide programs and initiatives aimed at combating obesogenic environments in municipalities and communities.

Transformational improvement in quality care and health systems: the next decade.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare is amongst the most complex of human systems. Coordinating activities and integrating newer with older ways of treating patients while delivering high-quality, safe care, is challenging. Three landmark reports in 2018 led by (1) the Lancet Global Health Commission, (2) a coalition of the World Health Organization, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Bank, and (3) the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine of the United States propose that health systems need to tackle care quality, create less harm and provide universal health coverage in all nations, but especially low- and middle-income countries. The objective of this study is to review these reports with the aim of advancing the discussion beyond a conceptual diagnosis of quality gaps into identification of practical opportunities for transforming health systems by 2030. MAIN BODY: We analysed the reports via text-mining techniques and content analyses to derive their key themes and concepts. Initiatives to make progress include better measurement, using the capacities of information and communications technologies, taking a systems view of change, supporting systems to be constantly improving, creating learning health systems and undergirding progress with effective research and evaluation. Our analysis suggests that the world needs to move from 2018, the year of reports, to the 2020s, the decade of action. We propose three initiatives to support this move: first, developing a blueprint for change, modifiable to each country's circumstances, to give effect to the reports' recommendations; second, to make tangible steps to reduce inequities within and across health systems, including redistributing resources to areas of greatest need; and third, learning from what goes right to complement current efforts focused on reducing things going wrong. We provide examples of targeted funding which would have major benefits, reduce inequalities, promote universality and be better at learning from successes as well as failures. CONCLUSION: The reports contain many recommendations, but lack an integrated, implementable, 10-year action plan for the next decade to give effect to their aims to improve care to the most vulnerable, save lives by providing high-quality healthcare and shift to measuring and ensuring better systems- and patient-level outcomes. This article signals what needs to be done to achieve these aims.

What Ibero-American hospitals do when things go wrong? A cross-sectional international study.

OBJECTIVE: To know what hospital managers and safety leaders in Ibero-American countries are doing to respond effectively to the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) with serious consequences for patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional international study. SETTING: Public and private hospitals in Ibero-American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Portugal and Spain). PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of hospital managers and safety leaders from eight Ibero-American countries. A minimum of 25 managers/leaders from each country were surveyed. INTERVENTIONS: A selection of 37 actions for the effective management of AEs was explored. These were related to the safety culture, existence of a crisis plan, communication and transparency processes with the patients and their families, attention to second victims and institutional communication. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Degree of implementation of the actions studied. RESULTS: A total of 190 managers/leaders from 126 (66.3%) public hospitals and 64 (33.7%) private hospitals participated. Reporting systems, in-depth analysis of incidents and non-punitive approaches were the most implemented interventions, while patient information and care for second victims after an AE were the least frequent interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of these hospitals have not protocolized how to act after an AE. For this reason, it is urgent to develop and apply a strategic action plan to respond to this imperative safety challenge. This is the first study to identify areas of work and future research questions in Ibero-American countries.

Institutionalizing quality within national health systems: key ingredients for success.

Quality improvement initiatives can be fragmented and short-term, leading to missed opportunities to improve quality in a systemic and sustainable manner. An overarching national policy or strategy on quality, informed by frontline implementation, can provide direction for quality initiatives across all levels of the health system. This can strengthen service delivery along with strong leadership, resources, and infrastructure as essential building blocks for the health system. This article draws on the proceedings of an ISQua conference exploring factors for institutionalizing quality of care within national systems. Active learning, inclusive of peer-to-peer learning and exchange, mentoring and coaching, emerged as a critical success factor to creating a culture of quality. When coupled by reinforcing elements like strong partnerships and coordination across multiple levels, engagement at all health system levels and strong political commitment, this culture can be cascaded to all levels requiring policy, leadership, and the capabilities for delivering quality healthcare.

Access of patients with breast and lung cancer to chemotherapy treatment in public and private hospitals in the city of Buenos Aires.

OBJECTIVES: Describe the time elapsed from the diagnosis to treatment with chemotherapy for patients with breast and lung cancer at public and private hospitals in Buenos Aires. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Three public and three private academic hospitals in Buenos Aires. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with breast (n = 168) or lung cancer (n = 100) diagnosis treated with chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Clinical and sociodemographic data were collected in a stratified sample. We used the Kaplan-Meier estimator to analyse the time elapsed and the log rank test to compare both groups. RESULTS: For breast cancer patients, median time elapsed between diagnosis and treatment with chemotherapy was 76 days (95% CI: 64-86) in public and 60 days (95% CI: 52-65) in private hospitals (P = 0.0001). For adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatments, median time was 130 (95% CI: 109-159) versus 64 (95% CI: 56-73) days (P < 0.0001) and 57 days (95% CI: 49-75) versus 26 (95% CI: 16-41) days, respectively (P = 0.0002). There were no significant differences in the time from first consultation to diagnosis. In patients with lung cancer, median time from diagnosis to treatment was 71 days (95% CI: 60-83) in public hospitals and 31 days (95% CI: 24-39) in private hospitals (P = 0.0002). In the metastatic setting, median time to treatment was 63 days (95% CI: 45-83) in public and 33 (95% CI: 26-44) days in private hospitals (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: There are significant disparity in the access to treatment with chemotherapy for patients in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

'Adiós Bacteriemias': a multi-country quality improvement collaborative project to reduce the incidence of CLABSI in Latin American ICUs.

QUALITY PROBLEM: The incidence of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) in Latin America has been estimated at 4.9 episodes per 1000 central line (CL) days, compared to a pooled incidence of 0.9 in the United States. CLABSI usually result from not adhering to standardized health procedures and can be prevented using evidence-based practices. INITIAL ASSESSMENT: The first phase of the 'Adiós Bacteriemias' Collaborative was implemented in 39 intensive care units (ICUs) from Latin America from September 2012 to September 2013 with a 56% overall reduction in the incidence of CLABSI. CHOICE OF SOLUTION: Bundles of care for the processes of insertion and maintenance of CLs have proven to be effective in the reduction of CLABSI across different settings. IMPLEMENTATION: Building on the results of the first phase, we implemented a second phase of the 'Adiós Bacteriemias' Collaborative between June 2014-July 2015. We adapted the Breakthrough Series (BTS) Collaborative model to guide the adoption of bundles of care for CLABSI prevention through virtual learning sessions and continuous feedback. EVALUATION: Eighty-three ICUs from five Latin American countries actively reported process and outcome measures. The overall reduction in the CLABSI incidence rate was 22% (incidence rate 0.78; 95% CI 0.65, 0.95), from 2.58 episodes per 1000 CL days at baseline to 2.02 episodes per 1000 CL days (P < 0.01) during the intervention period. LESSONS LEARNED: Adiós Bacteriemias was effective in reducing the incidence of CLABSI and improving the adherence to good practices for CL insertion and maintenance processes in participating ICUs in Latin America.

Patient-centered primary care and self-rated health in 6 Latin American and Caribbean countries: Analysis of a public opinion cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Despite the substantial attention to primary care (PC), few studies have addressed the relationship between patients' experience with PC and their health status in low-and middle-income countries. This study aimed to (1) test the association between overall patient-centered PC experience (OPCE) and self-rated health (SRH) and (2) identify specific features of patient-centered PC associated with better SRH (i.e., excellent or very good SRH) in 6 Latin American and Caribbean countries. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a 2013 public opinion cross-sectional survey on perceptions and experiences with healthcare systems in Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Jamaica, Mexico, and Panama; the data were nationally representative for urban populations. We analyzed 9 features of patient-centered PC. We calculated OPCE score as the arithmetic mean of the PC features. OPCE score ranged from 0 to 1, where 0 meant that the participant did not have any of the 9 patient-centered PC experiences, while 1 meant that he/she reported having all these experiences. After testing for interaction on the additive scale, we analyzed countries pooled for aim 1, with an interaction term for Mexico, and each country separately for aim 2. We used multiple Poisson regression models double-weighted by survey and inverse probability weights to deal with the survey design and missing data. The study included 6,100 participants. The percentage of participants with excellent or very good SRH ranged from 29.5% in Mexico to 52.4% in Jamaica. OPCE was associated with reporting excellent or very good SRH in all countries: adjusting for socio-demographic and health covariates, patients with an OPCE score of 1 in Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Jamaica, and Panama were more likely to report excellent or very good SRH than those with a score of 0 (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] 1.61, 95% CI 1.37-1.90, p < 0.001); in Mexico, this association was even stronger (aPR 4.27, 95% CI 2.34-7.81, p < 0.001). The specific features of patient-centered PC associated with better SRH differed by country. The perception that PC providers solve most health problems was associated with excellent or very good SRH in Colombia (aPR 1.38, 95% CI 1.01-1.91, p = 0.046) and Jamaica (aPR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02-1.43, p = 0.030). Having a provider who knows relevant medical history was positively associated with better SRH in Mexico (aPR 1.47, 95% CI 1.03-2.12, p = 0.036) but was negatively associated with better SRH in Brazil (aPR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.89, p = 0.003). Finally, easy contact with PC facility (Mexico: aPR 1.35, 95% CI 1.04-1.74, p = 0.023), coordination of care (Mexico: aPR 1.53, 95% CI 1.19-1.98, p = 0.001), and opportunity to ask questions (Brazil: aPR 1.42, 95% CI 1.11-1.83, p = 0.006) were each associated with better SRH. The main study limitation consists in the analysis being of cross-sectional data, which does not allow making causal inferences or identifying the direction of the association between the variables. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, a higher OPCE score was associated with better SRH in these 6 Latin American and Caribbean countries; associations between specific characteristics of patient-centered PC and SRH differed by country. The findings underscore the importance of high-quality, patient-centered PC as a path to improved population health.

Unpacking the black box of improvement.

During the Salzburg Global Seminar Session 565-'Better Health Care: How do we learn about improvement?', participants discussed the need to unpack the 'black box' of improvement. The 'black box' refers to the fact that when quality improvement interventions are described or evaluated, there is a tendency to assume a simple, linear path between the intervention and the outcomes it yields. It is also assumed that it is enough to evaluate the results without understanding the process of by which the improvement took place. However, quality improvement interventions are complex, nonlinear and evolve in response to local settings. To accurately assess the effectiveness of quality improvement and disseminate the learning, there must be a greater understanding of the complexity of quality improvement work. To remain consistent with the language used in Salzburg, we refer to this as 'unpacking the black box' of improvement. To illustrate the complexity of improvement, this article introduces four quality improvement case studies. In unpacking the black box, we present and demonstrate how Cynefin framework from complexity theory can be used to categorize and evaluate quality improvement interventions. Many quality improvement projects are implemented in complex contexts, necessitating an approach defined as 'probe-sense-respond'. In this approach, teams experiment, learn and adapt their changes to their local setting. Quality improvement professionals intuitively use the probe-sense-respond approach in their work but document and evaluate their projects using language for 'simple' or 'complicated' contexts, rather than the 'complex' contexts in which they work. As a result, evaluations tend to ask 'How can we attribute outcomes to the intervention?', rather than 'What were the adaptations that took place?'. By unpacking the black box of improvement, improvers can more accurately document and describe their interventions, allowing evaluators to ask the right questions and more adequately evaluate quality improvement interventions.

Research versus practice in quality improvement? Understanding how we can bridge the gap.

The gap between implementers and researchers of quality improvement (QI) has hampered the degree and speed of change needed to reduce avoidable suffering and harm in health care. Underlying causes of this gap include differences in goals and incentives, preferred methodologies, level and types of evidence prioritized and targeted audiences. The Salzburg Global Seminar on 'Better Health Care: How do we learn about improvement?' brought together researchers, policy makers, funders, implementers, evaluators from low-, middle- and high-income countries to explore how to increase the impact of QI. In this paper, we describe some of the reasons for this gap and offer suggestions to better bridge the chasm between researchers and implementers. Effectively bridging this gap can increase the generalizability of QI interventions, accelerate the spread of effective approaches while also strengthening the local work of implementers. Increasing the effectiveness of research and work in the field will support the knowledge translation needed to achieve quality Universal Health Coverage and the Sustainable Development Goals.

Quality improvement and emerging global health priorities.

Quality improvement approaches can strengthen action on a range of global health priorities. Quality improvement efforts are uniquely placed to reorient care delivery systems towards integrated people-centred health services and strengthen health systems to achieve Universal Health Coverage (UHC). This article makes the case for addressing shortfalls of previous agendas by articulating the critical role of quality improvement in the Sustainable Development Goal era. Quality improvement can stimulate convergence between health security and health systems; address global health security priorities through participatory quality improvement approaches; and improve health outcomes at all levels of the health system. Entry points for action include the linkage with antimicrobial resistance and the contentious issue of the health of migrants. The work required includes focussed attention on the continuum of national quality policy formulation, implementation and learning; alongside strengthening the measurement-improvement linkage. Quality improvement plays a key role in strengthening health systems to achieve UHC.