How to leverage innovation models to achieve health equity: Build. Measure. Share.

The Future of Nursing 2020 to 2030: Charting a Path to Achieve Health Equity (2021) highlights inequality throughout healthcare. People of color exhibit lower life expectancy levels than their White counterparts. LGTBQ individuals are 2.7 times more likely than heterosexuals to experience a violent crime . Lower-income individuals report their health status at lower levels than high-income earners. Health and healthcare in America are not equitable. With only 58% of healthcare organizations considering "Heath Equity" as a top-three priority, there is a substantial and dire need for innovation to fill the gap between the healthcare that is needed and what is being provided. This article explores the Build. Measure. Share. model for healthcare innovation as an approach to encourage and empower healthcare professionals to take meaningful steps toward creating an equitable and just health system.

Mangomoments - preconditions and impact on patients and families, healthcare professionals and organisations: a multi-method study in Flemish hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding how small unexpected acts or gestures by healthcare professionals, known as Mangomoments, are translated into practice, what their preconditions are and what their impact is on patients and families, healthcare professionals and organisations. DESIGN: A multi-method design was used based on four phases: (1) A (media)campaign to collect Mangomoment stories (n=1045), of which 94% (n=983) were defined as Mangomoments; (2) Semi-structured interviews (n=120); (3) Focus group interviews (n=3); and (4) A consensus meeting. SETTING: Respondents from a hospital and primary care setting. PARTICIPANTS: Patients, family, healthcare professionals, managers, researchers and a policymaker participated. RESULTS: Mangomoments are mainly classified in the dimensions 'Respect for values, preferences and needs' and 'Emotional support'. Differences in importance of the dimensions were found between healthcare professionals, oncological patients and family and non-oncological patients and family. The results of the interviews, focus groups and consensus meeting were visualised by the Mangomoment model. It identifies several preconditions on the level of patients, healthcare professionals and leadership. For each of these preconditions a catalyst was identified to increase the prevalence of Mangomoments. In general, Mangomoments improved the patient and family experience and facilitated adherence to therapy and led to a positive perception on the healing process. Positive effects for professionals include personal accomplishment and anti-burnout, joy in work and a positive team atmosphere. This led to positive resonance by a relationship of trust between the patient and the healthcare professionals, feelings of tolerance during negative experiences and open communication and a safe climate. Overall, patients and healthcare workers concluded that Mangomoments led to loyalty to the healthcare organisation. CONCLUSION: Mangomoments do not only have a positive impact on patient and family but also on the healthcare professional. Leadership should shape several preconditions and catalysts which can lead to positive resonance and loyalty of patients and professionals.

Can the Accountable Care Organization model facilitate integrated care in England?

Following the global economic recession, health care systems have experienced intense political pressure to contain costs without compromising quality. One response is to focus on improving the continuity and coordination of care, which is seen as beneficial for both patients and providers. However, cultural and structural barriers have proved difficult to overcome in the quest to provide integrated care for entire populations. By holding groups of providers responsible for the health outcomes of a designated population, in the United States, Accountable Care Organizations are regarded as having the potential to foster collaboration across the continuum of care. They could have a similar role in England's National Health Service. However, it is important to consider the difference in context before implementing a similar model, adapted to suit the system's strengths. Working together, general practice federations and the Academic Health Science Networks could form the basis of accountable care in England.

Applying a science-based method to improve perinatal care: the institute for healthcare improvement perinatal improvement community.

The Institute for Healthcare Improvement applies a systems-focused, science-based approach to improving perinatal care. This approach is based on the pioneering work in quality improvement and statistical process control performed by Walter Shewhart and W. Edwards Deming, and it uses the Model for Improvement, a simple and effective tool for accelerating improvement. In 2008, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement articulated a Triple Aim for improvement-better care, better health for populations, and lower per capita costs. The Triple Aim has become a guiding framework throughout health care and also guides much of the work of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement's collaborative effort to improve perinatal care-the Perinatal Improvement Community-is an ideal example of work that pursues all three dimensions of the Triple Aim. The improvement method used in the community creates the foundation for the kind of cultural transformation that Perinatal Improvement Community leaders and participants have learned is necessary to make significant and lasting change. Using a systems-focused and science-based approach to improvement equips obstetricians and gynecologists with the knowledge, skills, and tools they need to improve the systems of care they work in so they can deliver the best evidence-based care to all of their patients, all of the time.

Engaging patients and their loved ones in the ultimate conversation.

A grassroots group teams up with health care providers to transform the way Americans deal with care choices near the end of life.

More quality measures versus measuring what matters: a call for balance and parsimony.

External groups requiring measures now include public and private payers, regulators, accreditors and others that certify performance levels for consumers, patients and payers. Although benefits have accrued from the growth in quality measurement, the recent explosion in the number of measures threatens to shift resources from improving quality to cover a plethora of quality-performance metrics that may have a limited impact on the things that patients and payers want and need (ie, better outcomes, better care, and lower per capita costs). Here we propose a policy that quality measurement should be: balanced to meet the need of end users to judge quality and cost performance and the need of providers to continuously improve the quality, outcomes and costs of their services; and parsimonious to measure quality, outcomes and costs with appropriate metrics that are selected based on end-user needs.

Leading quality improvement in primary care: recommendations for success.

Leadership is increasingly recognized as a potential factor in the success of primary care quality improvement efforts, yet little is definitively known about which specific leadership behaviors are most important. Until more research is available, the authors suggest that primary care clinicians who are committed to developing their leadership skills should commit to a series of actions. These actions include embracing a theory of leadership, modeling the approach for others, focusing on the goal of improving patient outcomes, encouraging teamwork, utilizing available sources of power, and reflecting on one's approach in order to improve it. Primary care clinicians who commit themselves to such actions will be more effective leaders and will be more prepared as new research becomes available on this important factor.

More patients, less payment: increasing hospital efficiency in the aftermath of health reform.

A major issue for the US health care system will be accommodating the needs of the estimated thirty-two million Americans who will gain insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act by 2019. For hospitals, a traditional response to this increased demand might be to add resources, such as more staff and beds. We argue that such actions would be unaffordable and unnecessary. Research has demonstrated that large gains in efficiency can be made through streamlining patient flow and redesigning care processes. We argue that once managed efficiently, US hospitals, on average, could achieve at least an 80-90 percent bed occupancy rate--at least 15 percent higher than the current level--without adding beds at capital costs of approximately $1 million per bed. This article outlines a plan for hospitals to accommodate more patients without increasing beds or staff, and for policy makers to require hospitals to make these changes or provide incentives for them to do so.