Measuring in-hospital quality multidimensionally by integrating patients', kin's and healthcare professionals' perspectives: development and validation of the FlaQuM-Quickscan.

BACKGROUND: Measuring quality is essential to drive improvement initiatives in hospitals. An instrument that measures healthcare quality multidimensionally and integrates patients', kin's and professionals' perspectives is lacking. We aimed to develop and validate an instrument to measure healthcare quality multidimensionally from a multistakeholder perspective. METHODS: A multi-method approach started by establishing content and face validity, followed by a multi-centre study in 17 Flemish (Belgian) hospitals to assess construct validity through confirmatory factor analysis, criterion validity through determining Pearson's correlations and reliability through Cronbach's alpha measurement. The instrument FlaQuM-Quickscan measures 'Healthcare quality for patients and kin' (part 1) and 'Healthcare quality for professionals' (part 2). This bipartite instrument mirrors 15 quality items and 3 general items (the overall quality score, recommendation score and intention-to-stay score). A process evaluation was organised to identify effective strategies in instrument distribution by conducting semi-structured interviews with quality managers. RESULTS: By involving experts in the development of quality items and through pilot testing by a multi-stakeholder group, the content and face validity of instrument items was ensured. In total, 13,615 respondents (5,891 Patients/kin and 7,724 Professionals) completed the FlaQuM-Quickscan. Confirmatory factor analyses showed good to very good fit and correlations supported the associations between the quality items and general items for both instrument parts. Cronbach's alphas supported the internal consistency. The process evaluation revealed that supportive technical structures and approaching respondents individually were effective strategies to distribute the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: The FlaQuM-Quickscan is a valid instrument to measure healthcare quality experiences multidimensionally from an integrated multistakeholder perspective. This new instrument offers unique and detailed data to design sustainable quality management systems in hospitals. Based on these data, hospital management and policymakers can set quality priorities for patients', kin's and professionals' care. Future research should investigate the transferability to other healthcare systems and examine between-stakeholders and between-hospitals variation.

Where to make a difference: research and the social determinants in pediatrics and child health in the COVID-19 era.

IMPACT: Raises the importance of Social Determinants of Health in pediatrics. Considers the impact of Social Determinants of Health on COVID-19. Offers opportunities for research in the future.

Climate change, environmental sustainability and health care quality.

The challenges for health care continue to grow and in the 21st century healthcare policymakers and providers will need to respond to the developing impact of global warming and the environmental impact of healthcare service delivery. This cannot be viewed apart from the current Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, which is likely to be linked to the climate crisis.

International survey of COVID-19 management strategies.

BACKGROUND: While individual countries have gained considerable knowledge and experience in coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) management, an international, comparative perspective is lacking, particularly regarding the measures taken by different countries to tackle the pandemic. This paper elicits the views of health system staff, tapping into their personal expertise on how the pandemic was initially handled. METHODS: From May to July 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional, online, purpose-designed survey comprising 70 items. Email lists of contacts provided by the International Society for Quality in Health Care, the Italian Network for Safety in Health Care and the Australian Institute of Health Innovation were used to access healthcare professionals and managers across the world. We snowballed the survey to individuals and groups connected to these organizations. Key outcome measures were attitudes and information about institutional approaches taken; media communication; how acute hospitals were re-organized; primary health organization; personal protective equipment; and staffing and training. RESULTS: A total of 1131 survey participants from 97 countries across the World Health Organization (WHO) regions responded to the survey. Responses were from all six WHO regions; 57.9% were female and the majority had 10 or more years of experience in healthcare; almost half (46.5%) were physicians; and all other major clinical professional groups participated. As the pandemic progressed, most countries established an emergency task force, developed communication channels to citizens, organized health services to cope and put in place appropriate measures (e.g. pathways for COVID-19 patients, and testing, screening and tracing procedures). Some countries did this better than others. We found several significant differences between the WHO regions in how they are tackling the pandemic. For instance, while overall most respondents (71.4%) believed that there was an effective plan prior to the outbreak, this was only the case for 31.9% of respondents from the Pan American Health Organization compared with 90.7% of respondents from the South-East Asia Region (SEARO). Issues with swab testing (e.g. delay in communicating the swab outcome) were less frequently reported by respondents from SEARO and the Western Pacific Region compared with other regions. CONCLUSION: The world has progressed in its knowledge and sophistication in tackling the pandemic after early and often substantial obstacles were encountered. Most WHO regions have or are in the process of responding well, although some countries have not yet instituted widespread measures known to support mitigation, for example, effective swab testing and social control measures.

The care and keeping of clinicians in quality improvement.

OBJECTIVE: Although frontline clinicians are crucial in implementing and spreading innovations, their engagement in quality improvement remains suboptimal. Our goal was to identify facilitators and barriers to the development and engagement of clinicians in quality improvement. DESIGN: A 25-item questionnaire informed by theoretical frameworks was developed, tested and disseminated by email. SETTINGS: Members and fellows of the International Society for Quality in Healthcare. PARTICIPANTS: 1010 eligible participants (380 fellows and 647 members). INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-efficacy and effectiveness in conducting and leading quality improvement activities. RESULTS: We received 212 responses from 50 countries, a response rate of 21%. Dedicated time for quality improvement, mentorship and coaching and a professional quality improvement network were significantly related to higher self-efficacy. Factors enhancing effectiveness were dedicated time for quality improvement, multidisciplinary improvement teams, professional development in quality improvement, ability to select areas for improvement and organizational values and culture. Inadequate time, mentorship, organizational support and access to professional development resources were key barriers. Personal strengths contributing to effectiveness were the ability to identify problems that need to be fixed, reflecting on and learning from experiences and facilitating sharing of ideas. Key quality improvement implementation challenges were adopting new payment models, demonstrating the business case for quality and safety and building a culture of accountability and transparency. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight areas that organizations and professional development programs should focus on to promote clinician development and engagement in quality improvement. Barriers related to training, time, mentorship, organizational support and implementation must be concurrently addressed to augment the effectiveness of other approaches.

Factors to consider in the introduction of huddles on clinical wards: perceptions of staff on the SAFE programme.

OBJECTIVES: To explore paediatric hospital staff members' perceptions of the emerging benefits and challenges of the huddle, a new safety improvement initiative, as well as the barriers and facilitators to its implementation. DESIGN: A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews to explore staff perspectives and experiences. SETTING: Situation Awareness For Everyone (SAFE), a safety improvement programme, was implemented on a sample of National Health Service (NHS) paediatric wards from September 2014 to June 2016. Previously untested in England, the huddle was a central component of the programme. PARTICIPANTS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 76 staff members on four wards ~4 months after the start of the programme. RESULTS: A thematic analysis showed that staff perceived the huddle as helping to increase their awareness of important issues, improve communication, facilitate teamwork, and encourage a culture of increased efficiency, anticipation and planning on the ward. Challenges of the huddle included added pressure on staff time and workload, and the potential for junior nurses to be excluded from involvement, thus perhaps inadvertently reinforcing medical hierarchies. Staff also identified several barriers and facilitators to the huddle process, including the importance of senior nursing and medical staff leadership and managing staff time and capacity issues. CONCLUSIONS: The findings point towards the potential efficacy of the huddle as a way of improving hospital staff members' working environments and clinical practice, with important implications for other sites seeking to implement such safety improvement initiatives.

Quality of Health Care for Children in Australia, 2012-2013.

Importance: The quality of routine care for children is rarely assessed, and then usually in single settings or for single clinical conditions. Objective: To estimate the quality of health care for children in Australia in inpatient and ambulatory health care settings. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multistage stratified sample with medical record review to assess adherence with quality indicators extracted from clinical practice guidelines for 17 common, high-burden clinical conditions (noncommunicable [n = 5], mental health [n = 4], acute infection [n = 7], and injury [n = 1]), such as asthma, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, tonsillitis, and head injury. For these 17 conditions, 479 quality indicators were identified, with the number varying by condition, ranging from 9 for eczema to 54 for head injury. Four hundred medical records were targeted for sampling for each of 15 conditions while 267 records were targeted for anxiety and 133 for depression. Within each selected medical record, all visits for the 17 targeted conditions were identified, and separate quality assessments made for each. Care was evaluated for 6689 children 15 years of age and younger who had 15 240 visits to emergency departments, for inpatient admissions, or to pediatricians and general practitioners in selected urban and rural locations in 3 Australian states. These visits generated 160 202 quality indicator assessments. Exposures: Quality indicators were identified through a systematic search of local and international guidelines. Individual indicators were extracted from guidelines and assessed using a 2-stage Delphi process. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality of care for each clinical condition and overall. Results: Of 6689 children with surveyed medical records, 53.6% were aged 0 to 4 years and 55.5% were male. Adherence to quality of care indicators was estimated at 59.8% (95% CI, 57.5%-62.0%; n = 160 202) across the 17 conditions, ranging from a high of 88.8% (95% CI, 83.0%-93.1%; n = 2638) for autism to a low of 43.5% (95% CI, 36.8%-50.4%; n = 2354) for tonsillitis. The mean adherence by condition category was estimated as 60.5% (95% CI, 57.2%-63.8%; n = 41 265) for noncommunicable conditions (range, 52.8%-75.8%); 82.4% (95% CI, 79.0%-85.5%; n = 14 622) for mental health conditions (range, 71.5%-88.8%); 56.3% (95% CI, 53.2%-59.4%; n = 94 037) for acute infections (range, 43.5%-69.8%); and 78.3% (95% CI, 75.1%-81.2%; n = 10 278) for injury. Conclusions and Relevance: Among a sample of children receiving care in Australia in 2012-2013, the overall prevalence of adherence to quality of care indicators for important conditions was not high. For many of these conditions, the quality of care may be inadequate.

The right care, every time: improving adherence to evidence-based guidelines.

Guidelines are integral to reducing variation in paediatric care by ensuring that children receive the right care, every time. However, for reasons discussed in this paper, clinicians do not always follow evidence-based guidelines. Strategies to improve guideline usage tend to focus on dissemination and education. These approaches, however, do not address some of the more complex factors that influence whether a guideline is used in clinical practice. In this article, part of the Equipped Quality Improvement series, we outline the literature on barriers to guideline adherence and present practical solutions to address these barriers. Examples outlined include the use of care bundles, integrated care pathways and quality improvement collaboratives. A sophisticated information technology system can improve the use of evidence-based guidelines and provide organisations with valuable data for learning and improvement. Key to success is the support of an organisation that places reliability of service delivery as the way business is done. To do this requires leadership from clinicians in multidisciplinary teams and a system of continual improvement. By learning from successful approaches, we believe that all healthcare organisations can ensure the right care for each patient, every time.

Effectively leading for quality.

Although significant advances have occurred in medical and related sciences, the quality improvement and patient safety movements have been slow to gain traction. There are many "pockets" of progress around the globe; however, the scale and spread has been slow. Stimulating culture and system change in healthcare requires a definitive change in leadership style and approach. Health leaders of today must commit to the critical success factors and demonstrate the attributes necessary to create change and raise the bar for quality improvement and safety.

The application of the Global Trigger Tool: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: This study describes the use of, and modifications and additions made to, the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) since its first release in 2003, and summarizes its findings with respect to counting and characterizing adverse events (AEs). DATA SOURCES: Peer-reviewed literature up to 31st December 2014. STUDY SELECTION: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors extracted and compiled the demographics, methodologies and results of the selected studies. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Of the 48 studies meeting the eligibility criteria, 44 collected data from inpatient medical records and four from general practice records. Studies were undertaken in 16 countries. Over half did not follow the standard GTT protocol regarding the number of reviewers used. 'Acts of omission' were included in one quarter of studies. Incident reporting detected between 2% and 8% of AEs that were detected with the GTT. Rates of AEs varied in general inpatient studies between 7% and 40%. Infections, problems with surgical procedures and medication were the most common incident types. CONCLUSION: The GTT is a flexible tool used in a range of settings with varied applications. Substantial differences in AE rates were evident across studies, most likely associated with methodological differences and disparate reviewer interpretations. AE rates should not be compared between institutions or studies. Recommendations include adding 'omission' AEs, using preventability scores for priority setting, and re-framing the GTT's purpose to understand and characterize AEs rather than just counting them.

Considering harm and safety in youth mental health: a call for attention and action.

The possibility of harm from mental health provision, and in particular harm from youth mental health provision, has been largely overlooked. We contend that if we continue to assume youth mental health services can do no harm, and all that is needed is more services, we continue to risk the possibility that the safety of children and young people is unintentionally compromised. We propose a three level framework for considering harm from youth mental health provision (1. ineffective engagement, 2. ineffective practice and 3. adverse events) and suggest how this framework could be used to support quality improvement in services.