Impact of Clinical Process Improvement Training in an Integrated Delivery System.

Multiple integrated health systems use frontline staff training in quality and process improvement, although the optimal method to determine training success remains unknown. The authors assessed the Partners Clinical Process Improvement Leadership Program's short-term impact by evaluating data in project presentations during 14 courses between 2010 and 2016. Long-term impact was assessed via a graduate survey. Among 262 interprofessional teams, 180 (69%) achieved short-term improvement, including 78 (30%) achieving and 102 (39%) demonstrating improvement toward their project goal. Projects implementing ≥2 interventions were more likely to succeed. Of 231 graduates surveyed, 79% reported the ability to lead and 67% reported actual work on additional quality improvement projects. Ninety-seven percent of alumni reported a positive career impact. Hospital leadership support of clinical process improvement training meets short-term improvement needs and promotes long-term capacity for learning health systems.

Quality Improvement Training in a Variety of Cancer Care Delivery Settings: Experiences From a Comprehensive Cancer Center, an Academic Medical Center, and Community Practices.

PURPOSE: Training clinical and supportive staff in quality improvement (QI) theory and use of QI tools has the potential to improve oncology care delivery. We report our combined experience of providing training to oncologists in a variety of local settings and assess the effect of the training on individual participants and for institutions. METHODS: Multidisciplinary oncology teams at a comprehensive cancer center, an academic medical center, and community practices were led through experiential QI training that spanned several months. The curriculum included didactic training sessions that attendees applied to their local project-based work and that required plan-do-study-act cycles. The curriculum was adapted to the smaller practice setting through use of a workbook and a reduced focus on quantitative methods. All teams were supported by coaches and provided final presentations to leadership. The self-rated abilities of trainees to use 15 QI tools were assessed with a pre/post training survey that had five response categories (information, skill, knowledge, understanding, and wisdom). Local institutional and external project presentations were tracked. RESULTS: During 7 years, 129 trainees participated in 56 QI projects. All of the 15 QI tools had 80% of trainees rate themselves in the top three categories (knowledge, understanding, and wisdom) after the training; none met this threshold before. Multiple projects were presented in institutional and external settings. Most projects targeted three of the four domains of the ASCO Quality Oncology Practice Initiative certification program standards. CONCLUSIONS: We implemented and sustained QI training programs in a variety of cancer delivery settings. The flexible training model should be easily adoptable by others.

Characteristics of Volunteer Coaches in a Clinical Process Improvement Program.

INTRODUCTION: The Partners Clinical Process Improvement Leadership Program provides quality improvement training for clinicians and administrators, utilizing graduates as volunteer peer coaches for mentorship. We sought to understand the factors associated with volunteer coach participation and gain insight into how to improve and sustain this program. METHODS: Review of coach characteristics from course database and survey of frequent coaches. RESULTS: Out of 516 Partners Clinical Process Improvement Leadership Program graduates from March 2010 to June 2015, 117 (23%) individuals volunteered as coaches. Sixty-one (52%) individuals coached once, 31 (27%) coached twice, and 25 (21%) coached 3 or more times. There were statistically significant associations between coaching and occupation (P = .005), Partners Clinical Process Improvement Leadership Program course taken (P = .001), and course location (P = .007). Administrators were more likely to coach than physicians (odds ratio: 1.75, P = .04). Reasons for volunteering as a coach included further development of skills, desire to stay involved with program, and enjoying mentoring. Reasons for repeated coaching included maintaining quality improvement skills, expanding skills to a wider variety of projects, and networking. CONCLUSIONS: A peer graduate volunteer coach model is a viable strategy for interprofessional quality improvement mentorship. Strategies that support repeat coaching and engage clinicians should be promoted to ensure an experienced and diversified group of coaches.

Use of spaced education to deliver a curriculum in quality, safety and value for postgraduate medical trainees: trainee satisfaction and knowledge.

PURPOSE: Quality, patient safety and value are important topics for graduate medical education (GME). Spaced education delivers case-based content in a structured longitudinal experience. Use of spaced education to deliver quality and safety education in GME at an institutional level has not been previously evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To implement a spaced education course in quality, safety and value; to assess learner satisfaction; and to describe trainee knowledge in these areas. METHODS: We developed a case-based spaced education course addressing learning objectives related to quality, safety and value. This course was offered to residents and fellows about two-thirds into the academic year (March 2014) and new trainees during orientation (June 2014). We assessed learner satisfaction by reviewing the course completion rate and a postcourse survey, and trainee knowledge by the per cent of correct responses. RESULTS: The course was offered to 1950 trainees. A total of 305 (15.6%) enrolled in the course; 265/305 (86.9%) answered at least one question, and 106/305 (34.8%) completed the course. Fewer participants completed the March programme compared with the orientation programme (42/177 (23.7%) vs 64/128 (50.0%), p<0.001). Completion rates differed by specialty, 80/199 (40.2%) in non-surgical specialties compared with 16/106 (24.5%) in surgical specialties (p=0.008). The proportion of questions answered correctly on the first attempt was 53.2% (95% CI 49.4% to 56.9%). Satisfaction among those completing the programme was high. CONCLUSIONS: Spaced education can help deliver and assess learners' understanding of quality, safety and value principles. Offering a voluntary course may result in low completion. Learners were satisfied with their experience and were introduced to new concepts.