What is best for Esther? A simple question that moves mindsets and improves care.

BACKGROUND: Persons in need of services from different care providers in the health and welfare system often struggle when navigating between them. Connecting and coordinating different health and welfare providers is a common challenge for all involved. This study presents a long-term regional empirical example from Sweden-ESTHER, which has lasted for more than two decades-to show how some of those challenges could be met. The purpose of the study was to increase the understanding of how several care providers together could succeed in improving care by transforming a concept into daily practice, thus contributing with practical implications for other health and welfare contexts. METHODS: The study is a retrospective longitudinal case study with a qualitative mixed-methods approach. Individual interviews and focus groups were performed with staff members and persons in need of care, and document analyses were conducted. The data covers experiences from 1995 to 2020, analyzed using an open inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: This study shows how co-production and person-centeredness could improve care for persons with multiple care needs involving more than one care provider through a well-established Quality Improvement strategy. Perseverance from a project to a mindset was shaped by promoting systems thinking in daily work and embracing the psychology of change during multidisciplinary, boundary-spanning improvement dialogues. Important areas were Incentives, Work in practice, and Integration, expressed through trust in frontline staff, simple rules, and continuous support from senior managers. A continuous learning approach including the development of local improvement coaches and co-production of care consolidated the integration in daily work. CONCLUSIONS: The development was facilitated by a simple question: "What is best for Esther?" This question unified people, flattened the hierarchy, and reminded all care providers why they needed to improve together. Continuously focusing on and co-producing with the person in need of care strengthened the concept. Important was engaging the people who know the most-frontline staff and persons in need of care-in combination with permissive leadership and embracing quality improvement dimensions. Those insights can be useful in other health and welfare settings wanting to improve care involving several care providers.

The Educational Impact of Implementing National Quality Registries in Sweden-A National Collaboration Project.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a need for improved clinical outcomes, and a useful tool in this endeavor is the use of National Quality Registries (NQRs). To learn more about the impact of NQRs, a National Collaboration Project was formed. This follow-up study had 2 aims: first, to describe the value and learning of a National Collaboration Project focusing on the use of NQRs in collaboration between universities, health care organizations, and the regional registry centers; and, second, to describe what activities are still ongoing. METHOD: A qualitative design was used to obtain a detailed description of the extent to which project leaders perceived that the goals had been achieved after participation in the national project. A qualitative descriptive content analysis was performed. RESULTS: Four main categories were found. The context proved to be crucial for how the local projects were formed and developed. Networking was highlighted as an important part of learning. Another mentioned part of learning was the change planned and implemented in the curriculum to promote the use of NQRs. Finally, the importance of anchoring and spreading the lessons learned was also stressed. CONCLUSION: Using NQRs in multidisciplinary education is successful in many ways, but this study shows that certain factors need to be in place to make it work in practice.

In-depth comparison of two quality improvement collaboratives from different healthcare areas based on registry data-possible factors contributing to sustained improvement in outcomes beyond the project time.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) are widely used to improve healthcare, but there are few studies of long-term sustained improved outcomes, and inconsistent evidence about what factors contribute to success. The aim of the study was to open the black box of QICs and compare characteristics and activities in detail of two differing QICs in relation to their changed outcomes from baseline and the following 3 years. METHODS: Final reports of two QICs-one on heart failure care with five teams, and one on osteoarthritis care with seven teams, including detailed descriptions of improvement projects from each QIC's team, were analysed and coded by 18 QIC characteristics and four team characteristics. Goal variables from each team routinely collected within the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) and the Better Management of Patients with OsteoArthritis Registry (BOA) at year 2013 (baseline), 2014, 2015 and 2016 were analysed with univariate statistics. RESULTS: The two QICs differed greatly in design. The SwedeHF-QIC involved eight experts and ran for 12 months, whereas the BOA-QIC engaged three experts and ran for 6 months. There were about twice as many activities in the SwedeHF-QIC as in the BOA-QIC and they ranged from standardisation of team coordination to better information and structured follow-ups. The outcome results were heterogeneous within teams and across teams and QICs. Both QICs were highly appreciated by the participants and contributed to their learning, e.g. of improvement methods; however, several teams had already reached goal values when the QICs were launched in 2013. CONCLUSIONS: Even though many QI activities were carried out, it was difficult to see sustained improvements on outcomes. Outcomes as specific measurable aspects of care in need of improvement should be chosen carefully. Activities focusing on adherence to standard care programmes and on increased follow-up of patients seemed to lead to more long-lasting improvements. Although earlier studies showed that data follow-up and measurement skills as well as well-functioning data warehouses contribute to sustained improvements, the present registries' functionality and QICs at this time did not support those aspects sufficiently. Further studies on QICs and their impact on improvement beyond the project time should investigate the effect of those elements in particular.

Continued improvement of metabolic control in Swedish pediatric diabetes care.

BACKGROUND: To prospectively investigate if the grand mean HbA1c and the differences in mean HbA1c between centers in Sweden could be reduced, thereby improving care delivered by pediatric diabetes teams. METHODS: We used an 18-month quality improvement collaborative (QIC) together with the Swedish pediatric diabetes quality registry (SWEDIABKIDS). The first program (IQ-1), started in April 2011 and the second (IQ-2) in April 2012; together they encompassed 70% of Swedish children and adolescents with diabetes. RESULTS: The proportion of patients in IQ-1 with a mean HbA1c <7.4% (57 mmol/mol) increased from 26.4% before start to 35.9% at 36 months (P < .001), and from 30.2% to 37.2% (P < .001) for IQ-2. Mean HbA1c decreased in both participating and non-participating (NP) centers in Sweden, thereby indicating an improvement by a spatial spill over effect in NP centers. The grand mean HbA1c decreased by 0.45% (4.9 mmol/mol) during 36 months; at the end of 2014 it was 7.43% (57.7 mmol/mol) (P < .001). A linear regression model with the difference in HbA1c before start and second follow-up as dependent variable showed that QIC participation significantly decreased mean HbA1c both for IQ-1 and IQ-2. The proportion of patients with high HbA1c values (>8.7%, 72 mmol/mol) decreased significantly in both QICs, while it increased in the NP group. CONCLUSIONS: The grand mean HbA1c has decreased significantly in Sweden from 2010 to 2014, and QICs have contributed significantly to this decrease. There seems to be a spatial spill-over effect in NP centers.

Collaboratively Improving Diabetes Care in Sweden Using a National Quality Register: Successes and Challenges-A Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Since 1996, the Swedish National Diabetes Register (NDR) enabled health care providers to monitor their clinical performance over time and compare it with the national average. All health systems of Swedish county councils report data. By 2014, the NDR included data from 360 000 patients. Comparisons among county councils show significant variations in clinical outcomes and in adherence to evidence-based national guidelines. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether and how a quality improvement collaborative could influence clinical practice and outcomes. METHODS: Twenty-three diabetes teams from all over Sweden, both primary care units and internal medicine departments, joined a quality improvement collaborative. The project was inspired by the Breakthrough Collaborative Model and lasted for 20 months. Evaluation data were collected from the teams' final reports and the NDR throughout the study period. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The teams reported improved patient outcomes significantly compared with the national average for systolic blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein levels. In contrast, glycated hemoglobin A1c levels deteriorated in the whole NDR population. Five themes of changes in practice were tested and implemented. Success factors included improved teamwork, with active use of register data, and testing new ideas and learning from others.

Improved results in paediatric diabetes care using a quality registry in an improvement collaborative: a case study in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Several studies show that good metabolic control is important for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes. In Sweden, there are large differences in mean haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in different hospitals and difficulties implementing national guidelines in everyday practice. This study shows how the participation in an improvement collaborative could facilitate improvements in the quality of care by paediatric diabetes teams. The Swedish paediatric diabetes quality registry, SWEDIABKIDS was used as a tool and resource for feedback and outcome measures. METHODS: Twelve teams at paediatric diabetes centres, caring for 30% (2302/7660) of patients in Sweden, participated in an 18-month quality improvement program. Each team defined treatment targets, areas needing improvement, and action plans. The main outcome was the centre patients' mean HbA1c levels, but other clinical variables and change concepts were also studied. Data from the previous six months were compared with the first six months after starting the program, and the long-term follow up after another eleven months. RESULTS: All centres reduced mean HbA1c during the second and third periods compared with the first. The mean reduction for all was 3·7 mmol/mol (p<0.001), compared with non-participating centres who improved their mean HbA1c with 1·7 mmol/mol during the same period. Many of the participating centres reduced the frequency of severe hypoglycaemia and/or ketoacidosis, and five centres reached their goal of ensuring that all patients had some sort of physical activity at least once weekly. Change concepts were, for example, improved guidelines, appointment planning, informing the patients, improving teamwork and active use of the registry, and health promotion activities. CONCLUSIONS: By involving paediatric diabetes teams in a quality improvement collaborative together with access to a quality register, the quality of paediatric diabetes care can improve, thereby contributing to a reduced risk of late complications for children and adolescents with diabetes.

Quality improvement in coronary care: analysis of sustainability and impact on adjacent clinical measures after a Swedish controlled, multicenter quality improvement collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Quality Improvement in Coronary Care, a Swedish multicenter, controlled quality-improvement (QI) collaborative, has shown significant improvements in adherence to national guidelines for acute myocardial infarction, as well as improved clinical outcome. The objectives of this report were to describe the sustainability of the improvements after withdrawal of study support and a consolidation period of 3 months and to report whether improvements were disseminated to treatments and diagnostic procedures other than those primarily targeted. METHODS AND RESULTS: Multidisciplinary teams from 19 Swedish hospitals were educated in basic QI methodologies. Another 19 matched hospitals were included as blinded controls. All evaluations were made on the hospital level, and data were obtained from a national quality registry, Swedish Register of Information and Knowledge About Swedish Heart Intensive Care Admissions (RIKS-HIA). Sustainability indicators consisted of use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, lipid-lowering therapy, clopidogrel, low-molecular weight heparin, and coronary angiography. Dissemination indicators were use of echocardiography, stress tests, and reperfusion therapy; time delays; and length of stay. At the reevaluation period of 6 months, the improvements at the QI intervention hospitals were sustained in all indicators but 1 (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor). Between the 2 measurements, the control group improved significantly in all but 1 indicator (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor). However, at the second measurement, the absolute adherence rates of the intervention hospitals were still numerically higher in all 5 indicators, and significantly so in 1 (clopidogrel). No significant changes were observed for the dissemination indicators. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of a systematic QI collaborative with a national, interactive quality registry might lead to substantial and sustained improvements in the quality of acute myocardial infarction care. However, to achieve disseminated improvements in adjacent clinical measures, those adjacent measures probably should be made explicit before any QI intervention. (J Am Heart Assoc. 2012;1:e000737 doi: 10.1161/JAHA.112.000737.).

Improved clinical outcome after acute myocardial infarction in hospitals participating in a Swedish quality improvement initiative.

BACKGROUND: The Swedish quality improvement initiative Quality Improvement in Coronary Care previously demonstrated significant improvements in caregiver adherence to national guidelines for acute myocardial infarction. The associated impact on 1-year clinical outcome is presented here. METHODS AND RESULTS: During the baseline period July 2001 to June 2002, 6878 consecutive acute myocardial infarction patients <80 years were included at the 19 intervention and 19 control hospitals and followed for a mean of 12 months. During the postintervention period of May 2003 to April 2004, 6484 patients were included and followed in the same way. From baseline to postintervention, improvements in mortality and cardiovascular readmission rates (events per 100 patient-years) were significant in the intervention group (-2.82, 95% CI -5.26 to -0.39; -9.31, 95% CI -15.48 to -3.14, respectively). However, in the control hospitals, there were no significant improvements (0.04, 95% CI -2.40 to 2.47; -4.93, 95% CI -11.10 to 1.24, respectively). Bleedings in the control group increased in incidence (0.92, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.43), whereas the incidence remained unchanged in the intervention group (0.07, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.58). When the difference of changes between the study groups were evaluated, the results still were in favor of the intervention group, albeit significant only for bleeding complications (mortality: -2.70, 95% CI -6.37 to 0.97; cardiovascular readmissions: -6.85, 95% CI -16.62 to 2.93; bleeding complications: -0.82, 95% CI -1.66 to 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: With a systematic quality improvement initiative aiming to increase the adherence to acute myocardial infarction guidelines, it is possible to achieve long-term positive effects on clinical outcome.

Improving guideline adherence through intensive quality improvement and the use of a National Quality Register in Sweden for acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: Data from the Swedish National Register in Cardiac Care have shown over the last 10 years an enduring gap between optimal treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) according to current guidelines and the treatment actually given. We performed a controlled, prospective study in order to evaluate the effects of applying a multidisciplinary team-based improvement methodology to the use of evidence-based treatments in AMI, together with the use of a modified National Quality Register. The project engaged 25% of the Swedish hospitals. METHOD: Multidisciplinary teams from 20 hospitals participating in the National Register in Cardiac Care, ranging from small to large hospitals, were trained in continuous quality improvement methodology. Twenty matched hospitals served as controls. Our efforts were focused on finding and applying tools and methods to increase adherence to the national guidelines for 5 different treatments for AMI. For measurement, specially designed quality control charts were made available in the National Register for Cardiac Care. RESULTS: To close the gap, an important issue for the teams was to get all 5 treatments in place. Ten of the hospitals in the study group reduced the gap in 5 of 5 treatments by 50%, while none of the control hospitals did so. CONCLUSIONS: This first, controlled prospective study of a registry supported by multidisciplinary team-based improvement methodology showed that this approach led to rapidly improved adherence to AMI guidelines in a broad spectrum of hospitals and that National Quality Registers can be helpful tools.

Improved adherence to Swedish national guidelines for acute myocardial infarction: the Quality Improvement in Coronary Care (QUICC) study.

BACKGROUND: The adherence to evidence-based treatment guidelines for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is still suboptimal. Therefore, we designed a study to evaluate the effects of a collaborative quality improvement (QI) intervention on the adherence to AMI guidelines. The intervention used a national web-based quality registry to generate local and regular real-time performance feedback. METHODS: A 12-month baseline measurement of the adherence rates was retrospectively collected, comprising the period July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002. During the intervention period of November 1, 2002, through April 30, 2003, multidisciplinary teams from 19 nonrandomized intervention hospitals were subjected to a multifaceted QI-oriented intervention. Another 19 hospitals, unaware of their status as controls, were matched to the intervention hospitals. During the postintervention measurement period of May 1, 2003, through April 30, 2004, a total of 6726 consecutive patients were included at the intervention (n = 3786) and control (n = 2940) hospitals. The outcome measures comprised 5 Swedish national guideline-derived quality indicators, compared between baseline and postintervention levels in the control and QUICC intervention hospitals. RESULTS: In the control and QI intervention hospitals, the mean absolute increase of patients receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors was 1.4% vs 12.6% (P = .002), lipid-lowering therapy 2.3% vs 7.2% (P = .065), clopidogrel 26.3% vs 41.2% (P = .010), heparin/low-molecular weight heparin 5.3% vs 16.3% (P = .010), and coronary angiography 6.2% vs 16.8% (P = .027), respectively. The number of QI intervention hospitals reaching a treatment level of at least 70% in 4 or 5 of the 5 indicators was 15 and 5, respectively. In the control group, no hospital reached 70% or more in just 4 of the 5 indicators. CONCLUSIONS: By combining a systematic and multidisciplinary QI collaborative with a web-based national quality registry with functionality allowing real-time performance feedback, major improvements in the adherence to national AMI guidelines can be achieved.