Relation between pre-existing quality management measures and prevention and containment of COVID-19 outbreaks in 159 nursing homes in Tuscany: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Nursing homes were often the focus of COVID-19 outbreaks. Many factors are known to influence the ability of a nursing home to prevent and contain a COVID-19 outbreak. The role of an organisation's quality management prior to the pandemic is not yet clear. In the Italian region of Tuscany nursing home performance indicators have been regularly collected since before the pandemic, providing the opportunity to better understand this relationship. OBJECTIVES: To test if there is a difference in the results achieved by nursing homes in Tuscany on 13 quality management indicators, when grouped by severity of COVID-19 outbreaks; and to better understand how these indicators may be related to the ability to control COVID-19 outbreaks, from the perspective of nursing homes. METHODS: We used a mixed methods sequential explanatory design. Based on regional and national databases, 159 nursing homes in Tuscany were divided into four groups by outbreak severity. We tested the significance of the differences between the groups with respect to 13 quality management indicators. The potential relation of these indicators to COVID-19 outbreaks was discussed with 29 managers and other nursing homes' staff through four group interviews. RESULTS: The quantitative analysis showed significant differences between the groups of nursing homes for 3 of the 13 indicators. From the perspective of nursing homes, the indicators might not be good at capturing important aspects of the ability to control COVID-19 outbreaks. For example, while staffing availability is seen as essential, the staff-to-bed ratio does not capture the turn-over of staff and temporary absences due to positive COVID-19 testing of staff. CONCLUSIONS: Though currently collected indicators are key for overall performance monitoring and improvement, further refinement of the set of quality management indicators is needed to clarify the relationship with nursing homes' ability to control COVID-19 outbreaks.

How are regulatory oversight organisations using long-term care performance indicators: a qualitative descriptive study in 10 high-income countries.

OBJECTIVES: Regulatory oversight organisations play an important role in quality stewardship in long-term care (LTC) facilities. Performance indicators are a key tool for any quality-related work. Our aim was to better understand how and what performance indicators are used by regulatory oversight organisations for long-term care facilities oversight and which features are affecting their fitness for use. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We explored the use of LTC facility performance indicators by 10 regulatory oversight organisations from England, Ireland, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, Scotland, Singapore, Slovenia, Sweden and the Netherlands. We collected information by means of a questionnaire, 13 follow-up interviews with 20 experts from these organisations and document review. RESULTS: Performance indicators are used by participating oversight organisations to choose priority topics for audits, prioritise facilities to be audited and to identify areas within an audited facility, that require more attention. The indicators of most interest to oversight organisations are related to the dimensions of care articulated in the preset requirements on which audits are based. When the purpose of using indicators is to design a risk assessment model, the fitness for use of indicators ultimately depends on their ability to predict non-compliances on subsequent audits. When indicators are used directly by auditors, the ease of access, clear guidance to evaluate the data and the provision of contextual information are used by oversight organisations to increase fitness for use. CONCLUSIONS: Oversight organisations do not use LTC facility performance indicators to assess quality, but rather to assess the risk of lower quality or of non-compliance with requirements. This risk-related purpose has to be considered when the indicators used in oversight are chosen and when other aspects of fitness for use, such as data analysis and displaying findings, are developed.

The experiences of 33 national COVID-19 dashboard teams during the first year of the pandemic in the World Health Organization European Region: A qualitative study.

Background: Governments across the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region have prioritised dashboards for reporting COVID-19 data. The ubiquitous use of dashboards for public reporting is a novel phenomenon. Objective: This study explores the development of COVID-19 dashboards during the first year of the pandemic and identifies common barriers, enablers and lessons from the experiences of teams responsible for their development. Methods: We applied multiple methods to identify and recruit COVID-19 dashboard teams, using a purposive, quota sampling approach. Semi-structured group interviews were conducted from April to June 2021. Using elaborative coding and thematic analysis, we derived descriptive and explanatory themes from the interview data. A validation workshop was held with study participants in June 2021. Results: Eighty informants participated, representing 33 national COVID-19 dashboard teams across the WHO European Region. Most dashboards were launched swiftly during the first months of the pandemic, February to May 2020. The urgency, intense workload, limited human resources, data and privacy constraints and public scrutiny were common challenges in the initial development stage. Themes related to barriers or enablers were identified, pertaining to the pre-pandemic context, pandemic itself, people and processes and software, data and users. Lessons emerged around the themes of simplicity, trust, partnership, software and data and change. Conclusions: COVID-19 dashboards were developed in a learning-by-doing approach. The experiences of teams reveal that initial underpreparedness was offset by high-level political endorsement, the professionalism of teams, accelerated data improvements and immediate support with commercial software solutions. To leverage the full potential of dashboards for health data reporting, investments are needed at the team, national and pan-European levels.

Priority setting and cross-country learning: the relevance of TO-REACH for primary care.

AIM: To inform the primary care community about priorities for research in primary care as came up from the European project TO-REACH and to discuss transferability of service and policy innovations between countries. BACKGROUND: TO-REACH stands for Transfer of Organizational innovations for Resilient, Effective, equitable, Accessible, sustainable and Comprehensive Health services and systems. This EU-funded project has put health systems and services research higher on the European agenda and has led to the current development of a European 'Partnership Transforming Health and Care Systems'. METHODS: To identify research priorities, both qualitative and quantitative approaches were used. Policy documents and strategic roadmaps were searched, and priorities were mapped. Stakeholders were involved through national roundtable consultations and online consultations. Regarding transferability, we carried out a review of the literature, guided by a conceptual framework, and using a snowballing approach. FINDINGS: Primary care emerged as an important priority from the inventory, as are areas that are conducive to strengthening primary care, such as workforce policies. The large variation in service organisation and policy around primary care in Europe is a huge potential for cross-country learning. However, the simple transfer of primary care service and policy arrangements from one health system to another has a big chance to fail, unless known conditions for successful transfer are taken into account and gaps in our knowledge about transfer are resolved.

Public Reporting of Performance Indicators in Long-Term Care in Canada: Does it Make a Difference?

Evidence of the impact of public reporting of health care performance on quality improvement is not yet sufficient for definitive conclusions to be drawn, despite the important policy implications. This study explored the association of public reporting of performance indicators of long-term care facilities in Canada with performance trends. We considered 16 performance indicators in long-term care in Canada, 8 of which are publicly reported at a facility level, whereas the other 8 are not publicly reported, between the fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2018-2019. Data from 1,087 long-term care facilities were included. Improving trends were observed among publicly reported indicators more often than among indicators that were not publicly reported. Our analysis also suggests that the association between publication of data and improvement is stronger among indicators for which there was no improvement prior to publication and among the worst performing facilities.

Slovenia: health system summary

This Health System Summary is based on the Health System Review (HiT) published in 2021 andrelevant reform updates highlighted by the Health Systems and Policies Monitor (HSPM) (www.hspm.org). For this edition, key data have been updated to those available in March 2022 to keep informationas current as possible. Health System Summaries use a concise format to communicate centralfeatures of country health systems and analyse available evidence on the organization, financingand delivery of health care. They also provide insights into key reforms and the varied challengestesting the performance of the health system.

Exploring Changes to the Actionability of COVID-19 Dashboards Over the Course of 2020 in the Canadian Context: Descriptive Assessment and Expert Appraisal Study.

BACKGROUND: Public web-based COVID-19 dashboards are in use worldwide to communicate pandemic-related information. Actionability of dashboards, as a predictor of their potential use for data-driven decision-making, was assessed in a global study during the early stages of the pandemic. It revealed a widespread lack of features needed to support actionability. In view of the inherently dynamic nature of dashboards and their unprecedented speed of creation, the evolution of dashboards and changes to their actionability merit exploration. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore how COVID-19 dashboards evolved in the Canadian context during 2020 and whether the presence of actionability features changed over time. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive assessment of a pan-Canadian sample of COVID-19 dashboards (N=26), followed by an appraisal of changes to their actionability by a panel of expert scorers (N=8). Scorers assessed the dashboards at two points in time, July and November 2020, using an assessment tool informed by communication theory and health care performance intelligence. Applying the nominal group technique, scorers were grouped in panels of three, and evaluated the presence of the seven defined features of highly actionable dashboards at each time point. RESULTS: Improvements had been made to the dashboards over time. These predominantly involved data provision (specificity of geographic breakdowns, range of indicators reported, and explanations of data sources or calculations) and advancements enabled by the technologies employed (customization of time trends and interactive or visual chart elements). Further improvements in actionability were noted especially in features involving local-level data provision, time-trend reporting, and indicator management. No improvements were found in communicative elements (clarity of purpose and audience), while the use of storytelling techniques to narrate trends remained largely absent from the dashboards. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements to COVID-19 dashboards in the Canadian context during 2020 were seen mostly in data availability and dashboard technology. Further improving the actionability of dashboards for public reporting will require attention to both technical and organizational aspects of dashboard development. Such efforts would include better skill-mixing across disciplines, continued investment in data standards, and clearer mandates for their developers to ensure accountability and the development of purpose-driven dashboards.

International comparison of pressure ulcer measures in long-term care facilities: Assessing the methodological robustness of 4 approaches to point prevalence measurement.

INTRODUCTION: Pressure ulcer indicators are among the most frequently used performance measures in long-term care settings. However, measurement systems vary and there is limited knowledge about the international comparability of different measurement systems. The aim of this analysis was to identify possible avenues for international comparisons of data on pressure ulcer prevalence among residents of long-term care facilities. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A descriptive analysis of the four point prevalence measurement systems programs used in 28 countries on three continents was performed. The criteria for the description and analysis were based on the scientific literature on criteria for indicator selection, on issues in international comparisons of data and on specific challenges of pressure ulcer measurements. RESULTS: The four measurement systems use a prevalence measure based on very similar numerator and denominator definitions. All four measurement systems also collect data on patient mobility. They differ in the pressure ulcer classifications used and the requirements for a head-to-toe resident examination. The regional or country representativeness of long-term care facilities also varies among the four measurement systems. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological differences among the point prevalence measurement systems are an important barrier to reliable comparisons of pressure ulcer prevalence data. The alignment of the methodologies may be improved by implementing changes to the study protocols, such as aligning the classification of pressure ulcers and requirements for a head-to-toe resident skin assessment. The effort required for each change varies. All these elements need to be considered by any initiative to facilitate international comparison and learning.

Features Constituting Actionable COVID-19 Dashboards: Descriptive Assessment and Expert Appraisal of 158 Public Web-Based COVID-19 Dashboards.

BACKGROUND: Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the development of dashboards as dynamic, visual tools for communicating COVID-19 data has surged worldwide. Dashboards can inform decision-making and support behavior change. To do so, they must be actionable. The features that constitute an actionable dashboard in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic have not been rigorously assessed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to explore the characteristics of public web-based COVID-19 dashboards by assessing their purpose and users ("why"), content and data ("what"), and analyses and displays ("how" they communicate COVID-19 data), and ultimately to appraise the common features of highly actionable dashboards. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive assessment and scoring using nominal group technique with an international panel of experts (n=17) on a global sample of COVID-19 dashboards in July 2020. The sequence of steps included multimethod sampling of dashboards; development and piloting of an assessment tool; data extraction and an initial round of actionability scoring; a workshop based on a preliminary analysis of the results; and reconsideration of actionability scores followed by joint determination of common features of highly actionable dashboards. We used descriptive statistics and thematic analysis to explore the findings by research question. RESULTS: A total of 158 dashboards from 53 countries were assessed. Dashboards were predominately developed by government authorities (100/158, 63.0%) and were national (93/158, 58.9%) in scope. We found that only 20 of the 158 dashboards (12.7%) stated both their primary purpose and intended audience. Nearly all dashboards reported epidemiological indicators (155/158, 98.1%), followed by health system management indicators (85/158, 53.8%), whereas indicators on social and economic impact and behavioral insights were the least reported (7/158, 4.4% and 2/158, 1.3%, respectively). Approximately a quarter of the dashboards (39/158, 24.7%) did not report their data sources. The dashboards predominately reported time trends and disaggregated data by two geographic levels and by age and sex. The dashboards used an average of 2.2 types of displays (SD 0.86); these were mostly graphs and maps, followed by tables. To support data interpretation, color-coding was common (93/158, 89.4%), although only one-fifth of the dashboards (31/158, 19.6%) included text explaining the quality and meaning of the data. In total, 20/158 dashboards (12.7%) were appraised as highly actionable, and seven common features were identified between them. Actionable COVID-19 dashboards (1) know their audience and information needs; (2) manage the type, volume, and flow of displayed information; (3) report data sources and methods clearly; (4) link time trends to policy decisions; (5) provide data that are "close to home"; (6) break down the population into relevant subgroups; and (7) use storytelling and visual cues. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 dashboards are diverse in the why, what, and how by which they communicate insights on the pandemic and support data-driven decision-making. To leverage their full potential, dashboard developers should consider adopting the seven actionability features identified.

Slovenia: Health System Review.

This analysis of the Slovene health system reviews recent developments in organization and governance, health financing, health care provision, health reforms and health system performance. Slovenia has a statutory health insurance system with a single public insurer, providing almost universal coverage for a broad benefits package, though some services require relatively high levels of co-insurance (called co-payments in Slovenia). To cover these costs, about 95% of the population liable for cost-sharing purchases complementary, voluntary health insurance. Health expenditure per capita and as a share of GDP has increased slightly, but still trails behind the EU average. Among statutory health insurance countries, Slovenia is rather unique in that it relies almost exclusively on payroll contributions to fund its system, making health sector revenues vulnerable to economic and labour market fluctuations, and population ageing. Important organizational changes are underway or have been implemented, especially in prevention, primary, emergency and long-term care. Access to services is generally good, given wide coverage of statutory health insurance. Further, Slovenia has some of the lowest rates of out-of-pocket and catastrophic spending in the EU, due to extensive uptake of complementary voluntary health insurance. Yet long waiting times for some services are a persistent issue. Though population health has improved in the last decades, health inequalities due to gender, social and economic determinants and geography remain an important challenge. There is variation in health care performance indicators, but Slovenia performs comparatively well for its level of health spending overall. As such, there is clear scope to improve health and efficiency, including balancing population needs when planning health service volumes. Recently, the Slovene health care system was overwhelmed by the demand for COVID-19-related care. The pandemicâs longer-term effects are still unknown, but it has significantly impacted on life expectancy in the short-term and resulted in delayed or forgone consultations and treatments for other health issues, and longer waiting times. Additional challenges, which are necessary to address to ensure long-term sustainability, strengthen resiliency and improve the capacity for service delivery and quality of care of the health system include: 1) health workforce planning; 2) outdated facilities; 3) health system performance assessment; and 4) implementation of current LTC reform.

Why, what and how do European healthcare managers use performance data? Results of a survey and workshop among members of the European Hospital and Healthcare Federation.

Objective of this study was to better understand the use of performance data for evidence-based decision-making by managers in hospitals and other healthcare organisations in Europe in 2019. In order to explore why, what and how performance data is collected, reported and used, we conducted a cross-sectional study based on a self-reported online questionnaire and a follow-up interactive workshop. Our study population were participants of a pan-European professional Exchange Programme and their hosts (n = 125), mostly mid-level hospital managers. We found that a substantial amount of performance data is collected and reported, but could be utilised better for decision-making purposes. Motivation to collect and report performance data is equally internal and external, for improvement as well as for accountability purposes. Benchmarking between organisations is recognised as being important but is still underused. A plethora of different data sources are used, but more should be done on conceptualising, collecting, reporting and using patient-reported data. Managers working for privately owned organisations reported greater use of performance data than those working for public ones. Strategic levels of management use performance data more for justifying their decisions, while managers on operational and clinical levels use it more for day-to-day decision-making. Our study showed that, despite the substantial and increasing use of performance data for evidence-based management, there is room and need to further explore and expand its role in strategic decision-making and supporting a shift in healthcare from organisational accountability towards the model of learning organisations.

Ситуационный анализ формирования политики с учетом фактических данных: Словения

Присоединившись к Сети по вопросам использования научных данных при формировании политики Европейского регионального бюро ВОЗ (EVIPNet-Европа), Словения стала одним из первых государств-членов Европейского региона ВОЗ, продемонстрировавших приверженность принципам формирования политики в области здравоохранения с учетом фактических данных. Начало этой инициативе было положено в 2014 г. на семинаре с участием высоких заинтересованных сторон. Оказываемая помощь и деятельность по укреплению потенциала были положительно восприняты Министерством здравоохранения, которое в то время столкнулось с экономическими трудностями, что привело к сокращению расходов, и, кроме того, в 2015 году были запущены процессы новой реформы здравоохранения. Когда Словения стала членом EVIPNet-Европа, одним из первых мероприятий стало проведение ситуационного анализа, который представляет собой углубленное изучение политического и исследовательского контекста страны, а также взаимодействия между двумя этими областями. Цель ситуационного анализа заключалась в отображении и оценке условий, в которых формируется ПУФД, и анализе возможностей для создания ПППЗ. Анализ был основан на данных источниках информации и структурирован по четырем областям: 1. общий контекст страны; 2. система здравоохранения; 3. национальная система медицинских исследований; 4. процессы формирования ПУФД.

Situation analysis on evidence-informed policy-making: Slovenia

Slovenia was one of the first Member States of the WHO European Region to demonstrate commitment to the principles of strengthening evidence-informed health policy-making (EIP) by joining the WHO Regional Office for Europe’s Evidence-informed Policy Network (EVIPNet Europe). In 2014, the initiative was launched at a high-level stakeholder workshop and its assistance and capacity-building activities were warmly welcomed by the Ministry of Health, which at the time faced economic constraints leading to reduced spending, as well as embarking in 2015 on new health reform processes. One of the first activities undertaken when Slovenia became a member of EVIPNet Europe was to engage in a situation analysis, which is an advanced study of the country’s policy context, the research context and the interaction between both of these realms. The aim of this situation analysis was to map and assess the context in which EIP takes shape, and to reflect on opportunities to establish a knowledge translation platform (KTP). The analysis was built on these information sources and structured into four areas: 1. general country context; 2. the health system; 3. national health research system; and 4. EIP processes.

Slovenia: Health System Review.

This analysis of the Slovene health system reviews recent developments in organization and governance, health financing, health care provision, health reforms and health system performance. The health of the population has improved over the last few decades. While life expectancy for both men and women is similar to EU averages, morbidity and mortality data show persistent disparities between regions, and mortality from external causes is particularly high. Satisfaction with health care delivery is high, but recently waiting times for some outpatient specialist services have increased. Greater focus on preventive measures is also needed as well as better care coordination, particularly for those with chronic conditions. Despite having relatively high levels of co-payments for many services covered by the universal compulsory health insurance system, these expenses are counterbalanced by voluntary health insurance, which covers 95% of the population liable for co-payments. However, Slovenia is somewhat unique among social health insurance countries in that it relies almost exclusively on payroll contributions to fund its compulsory health insurance system. This makes health sector revenues very susceptible to economic and labour market fluctuations. A future challenge will be to diversify the resource base for health system funding and thus bolster sustainability in the longer term, while preserving service delivery and quality of care. Given changing demographics and morbidity patterns, further challenges include restructuring the funding and provision of long-term care and enhancing health system efficiency through reform of purchasing and provider-payment systems.

Slovenia: health system review

This analysis of the Slovene health system reviews recent developmentsin organization and governance, health financing, health care provision,health reforms and health system performance. The health of thepopulation has improved over the last few decades. While life expectancyfor both men and women is similar to EU averages, morbidity and mortalitydata show persistent disparities between regions, and mortality from externalcauses is particularly high. Satisfaction with health care delivery is high, butrecently waiting times for some outpatient specialist services have increased.Greater focus on preventive measures is also needed as well as better carecoordination, particularly for those with chronic conditions. Despite havingrelatively high levels of co-payments for many services covered by the universalcompulsory health insurance system, these expenses are counterbalanced byvoluntary health insurance, which covers 95% of the population liable forco-payments. However, Slovenia is somewhat unique among social healthinsurance countries in that it relies almost exclusively on payroll contributionsto fund its compulsory health insurance system. This makes health sectorrevenues very susceptible to economic and labour market fluctuations. A futurechallenge will be to diversify the resource base for health system funding andthus bolster sustainability in the longer term, while preserving service deliveryand quality of care. Given changing demographics and morbidity patterns,further challenges include restructuring the funding and provision of long-termcare and enhancing health system efficiency through reform of purchasing andprovider-payment systems.