Reporting standards, outcomes and costs of quality improvement studies in Ireland: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To profile the aims and characteristics of quality improvement (QI) initiatives conducted in Ireland, to review the quality of their reporting and to assess outcomes and costs. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar, Lenus and rian.ie. Two researchers independently screened abstracts (n=379) and separately reviewed 43 studies identified for inclusion using a 70-item critique tool. The tool was based on the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS), an appraisal instrument for QI intervention publications, and health economics reporting criteria. After reaching consensus, the final dataset was analysed using descriptive statistics. To support interpretations, findings were presented at a national stakeholder workshop. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: QI studies implemented and evaluated in Ireland and published between January 2015 and April 2020. RESULTS: The 43 studies represented various QI interventions. Most studies were peer-reviewed publications (n=37), conducted in hospitals (n=38). Studies mainly aimed to improve the 'effectiveness' (65%), 'efficiency' (53%), 'timeliness' (47%) and 'safety' (44%) of care. Fewer aimed to improve 'patient-centredness' (30%), 'value for money' (23%) or 'staff well-being' (9%). No study aimed to increase 'equity'. Seventy per cent of studies described 14 of 16 QI-MQCS dimensions. Least often studies reported the 'penetration/reach' of an initiative and only 35% reported health outcomes. While 53% of studies expressed awareness of costs, only eight provided at least one quantifiable figure for costs or savings. No studies assessed the cost-effectiveness of the QI. CONCLUSION: Irish QI studies included in our review demonstrate varied aims and high reporting standards. Strategies are needed to support greater stimulation and dissemination of QI beyond the hospital sector and awareness of equity issues as QI work. Systematic measurement and reporting of costs and outcomes can be facilitated by integrating principles of health economics in QI education and guidelines.

Grounded accountability in life-and-death high-consequence healthcare settings.

PURPOSE: The paper examines interviewee insights into accountability for clinical governance in high-consequence, life-and-death hospital settings. The analysis draws on the distinction between formal "imposed accountability" and front-line "felt accountability". From these insights, the paper introduces an emergent concept, "grounded accountability". DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Interviews are conducted with 41 clinicians, managers and governors in two large academic hospitals. The authors ask interviewees to recall a critical clinical incident as a focus for elucidating their experiences of and observation on the practice of accountability. FINDINGS: Accountability emerges from the front-line, on-the-ground. Together, clinicians, managers and governors co-construct accountability. Less attention is paid to cost, blame, legal processes or personal reputation. Money and other accountability assumptions in business do not always apply in a hospital setting. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The authors propose the concept of co-constructed "grounded accountability" comprising interrelationships between the concept's three constituent themes of front-line staff's felt accountability, along with grounded engagement by managers/governors, supported by a culture of openness.

Mapping clinical governance to practitioner roles and responsibilities.

PURPOSE: While clinical governance is assumed to be part of organisational structures and policies, implementation of clinical governance in practice (the praxis) can be markedly different. This paper draws on insights from hospital clinicians, managers and governors on how they interpret the term "clinical governance". The influence of best-practice and roles and responsibilities on their interpretations is considered. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The research is based on 40 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with hospital clinicians, managers and governors from two large academic hospitals in Ireland. The analytical lens for the research is practice theory. Interview transcripts are analysed for practitioners' spoken keywords/terms to explore how practitioners interpret the term "clinical governance". The practice of clinical governance is mapped to front line, management and governance roles and responsibilities. FINDINGS: The research finds that interpretation of clinical governance in praxis is quite different from best-practice definitions. Practitioner roles and responsibilities held influence practitioners' interpretation. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The research examines interpretations of clinical governance in praxis by clinicians, managers and governors and highlights the adverse consequence of the absence of clear mapping of roles and responsibilities to clinical, management and governance practice.

Do different approaches to clinical governance development and implementation make a difference? Findings from Ireland and New Zealand.

Purpose Clinical governance (CG) is an important foundation for a high-performing health care system, with many countries supporting its development. CG policy may be developed and implemented nationally, or devolved to a local level, with implications for the overall approach to implementation and policy uptake. However, it is not known whether one of these two approaches is more effective. The purpose of this paper is to probe this question. Its setting is Ireland and New Zealand, two broadly comparable countries with similar CG policies. Ireland's was nationally led, while New Zealand's was devolved to local districts. This leads to the question of whether these different approaches to implementation make a difference. Design/methodology/approach Data from surveys of health professionals in both countries were used to compare performance with CG development. Findings The study showed that Ireland's approach produced a slightly better performance, raising questions about the merits of devolving responsibility for policy implementation to the local level. Research limitations/implications The Irish and New Zealand surveys both had lower-than-desirable response rates, which is not uncommon for studies of health professionals such as this. The low response rates mean the findings may be subject to selection bias. Originality/value Despite the importance of the question of whether a national or local approach to policy implementation is more effective, few studies specifically focus on this, meaning that this study provides a new contribution to the topic.