Measuring in-hospital quality multidimensionally by integrating patients', kin's and healthcare professionals' perspectives: development and validation of the FlaQuM-Quickscan.

BACKGROUND: Measuring quality is essential to drive improvement initiatives in hospitals. An instrument that measures healthcare quality multidimensionally and integrates patients', kin's and professionals' perspectives is lacking. We aimed to develop and validate an instrument to measure healthcare quality multidimensionally from a multistakeholder perspective. METHODS: A multi-method approach started by establishing content and face validity, followed by a multi-centre study in 17 Flemish (Belgian) hospitals to assess construct validity through confirmatory factor analysis, criterion validity through determining Pearson's correlations and reliability through Cronbach's alpha measurement. The instrument FlaQuM-Quickscan measures 'Healthcare quality for patients and kin' (part 1) and 'Healthcare quality for professionals' (part 2). This bipartite instrument mirrors 15 quality items and 3 general items (the overall quality score, recommendation score and intention-to-stay score). A process evaluation was organised to identify effective strategies in instrument distribution by conducting semi-structured interviews with quality managers. RESULTS: By involving experts in the development of quality items and through pilot testing by a multi-stakeholder group, the content and face validity of instrument items was ensured. In total, 13,615 respondents (5,891 Patients/kin and 7,724 Professionals) completed the FlaQuM-Quickscan. Confirmatory factor analyses showed good to very good fit and correlations supported the associations between the quality items and general items for both instrument parts. Cronbach's alphas supported the internal consistency. The process evaluation revealed that supportive technical structures and approaching respondents individually were effective strategies to distribute the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: The FlaQuM-Quickscan is a valid instrument to measure healthcare quality experiences multidimensionally from an integrated multistakeholder perspective. This new instrument offers unique and detailed data to design sustainable quality management systems in hospitals. Based on these data, hospital management and policymakers can set quality priorities for patients', kin's and professionals' care. Future research should investigate the transferability to other healthcare systems and examine between-stakeholders and between-hospitals variation.

Sustainable quality management in hospitals: The experiences of healthcare quality managers.

BACKGROUND: Quality management systems are essential in hospitals, but evidence shows a real literature gap on the sustainable implementation of quality. PURPOSE: This study aimed to explore and identify enablers towards sustainable quality management in hospitals. Research design and Study Sample: Interviews were conducted with 23 healthcare quality managers from 20 hospitals. Data collection and/or Analysis: Data collection and analysis were conducted simultaneously by using the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven and following the COREQ Guidelines. Thematic analysis from interview transcripts was performed in NVivo 12. RESULTS: The results reveal two categories: (1) quality in the organisation's DNA and (2) quality in the professional's DNA. The first category consists of: bottom-up and top-down management, the organisation-wide integration of quality and an organisational culture shift. The second one consists of: quality awareness, understanding the added value, the encouragement and engagement, the accountability and ownership for quality. Moving towards sustainable quality management systems in hospitals requires a good interaction between a bottom-up approach and leadership to ensure continuous support from healthcare stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes to existing conceptual and theoretical foundations with practical insights into sustainable quality management. The findings can guide quality departments and hospital management to regain professionals' commitment to quality and to establish a sustainable quality management system.

Continuous Shoulder Activity Tracking after Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Proximal Humerus Fractures.

Postoperative shoulder activity after proximal humerus fracture treatment could influence the outcomes of osteosynthesis and may depend on the rehabilitation protocol. This multi-centric prospective study aimed at evaluating the feasibility of continuous shoulder activity monitoring over the first six postoperative weeks, investigating potential differences between two different rehabilitation protocols. Shoulder activity was assessed with pairs of accelerometer-based trackers during the first six postoperative weeks in thirteen elderly patients having a complex proximal humerus fracture treated with a locking plate. Shoulder angles and elevation events were evaluated over time and compared between the two centers utilizing different standard rehabilitation protocols. The overall mean shoulder angle ranged from 11° to 23°, and the number of daily elevation events was between 547 and 5756. Average angles showed longitudinal change <5° over 31 ± 10 days. The number of events increased by 300% on average. Results of the two clinics exhibited no characteristic differences for shoulder angle, but the number of events increased only for the site utilizing immediate mobilization. In addition to considerable inter-patient variation, not the mean shoulder angle but the number of elevations events increased markedly over time. Differences between the two sites in number of daily events may be associated with the different rehabilitation protocols.

Impact of the first COVID-19 wave on surgical training in Flanders: are we losing competence?

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has tremendously impacted the healthcare system and residency programs worldwide. Surgical residents were redeployed to COVID-19 units, whereas education and scientific didactics were reduced. The aim of this study is to identify the impact of COVID-19 on Flemish surgical residents' education, personal life and volume of performed surgeries. METHODS: A cross-sectional retrospective survey on educational and personal impact during the first COVID-19 wave was administered anonymously to all surgical residents in Flanders. A quantitative comparison of performed surgeries during this period and the same period a year earlier was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 193 surgical residents (46%) completed the survey. 63% of residents were no longer admitted to multidisciplinary oncologic meetings and 107 (55%) residents had no longer any scientific theoretical meetings at all. Almost one in two residents (46%) indicated more than 50% reduction in time in the operating theater and one in three (31%) residents were involved in care for COVID-19 positive surgical patients. Seventy-eight percent of the residents experienced a negative impact on their surgical training and 41% experienced a negative influence on their private situation. Performed surgical cases during the COVID-19 period were on average 40% less for second, third- and fourth-year residents. CONCLUSION: Surgical residents perceived a high negative impact on personal and professional lives during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in Flanders. Education and training programs were cancelled and volume of performed surgeries decreased tremendously. Policymakers and surgical program coordinators should ensure surgical education during further evolution of this and future pandemics.

Cornerstones of a sustainable national quality policy: A qualitative study based on international expert opinions.

BACKGROUND: National initiatives launched to improve the quality of care have grown exponentially over the last decade. Public reporting, accreditation and governmental inspection form the basis for quality in Flemish (Belgian) hospitals. Due to the lack of evidence for these national initiatives and the questions concerning their sustainability, our research aims to identify cornerstones of a sustainable national quality policy for acute-care hospitals based on international expert opinion. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using in-depth semi-structured interviews with 12 renowned international quality and patient safety experts selected by purposive sampling. Interviews focussed on participants' perspectives and their recommendations for a future, sustainable quality policy. Inductive analysis was carried out with themes being generated from the data using the constant comparison method. RESULTS: Three major and five minor themes were identified and integrated into a framework as a basis for national quality policies. Quality culture, minimum requirements for quality education and quality control as well as continuous learning and improvement act as cornerstones of this framework. CONCLUSIONS: Complementary to the current national policy, this study demonstrated the need for profound attention to quality cultures in acute-care hospitals. Policymakers need to provide a control system and minimum requirements for quality education for all healthcare workers. A model for continuous learning and improvement with data feedback loops has to be installed in each hospital to obtain a sustainable quality system. This framework can inspire policymakers to further develop bottom-up initiatives in co-governance with all relevant stakeholders adapted to individual hospitals' context.

Patients' and kin's perspective on healthcare quality compared to Lachman's multidimensional quality model: Focus group interviews.

OBJECTIVES: To identify key attributes of healthcare quality relevant to patients and kin and to compare them to Lachman's multidimensional quality model. METHODS: Four focus groups with patients and kin were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide and a purposive sampling method. Classical content analysis and constant comparison method were used to focus data analysis on individual and group level. RESULTS: Communication with patients, kin and professionals emerged as a new dimension from interview transcripts. Other identified key attributes largely corresponded with Lachman's multidimensional quality model. They were mainly classified in dimensions: 'Partnership and Co-Production', 'Dignity and Respect' and 'Effectiveness'. Technical quality dimensions were linked to organisational aspects of care in terms of staffing levels and time. The dimension 'Eco-friendly' was not addressed by patients or kin. CONCLUSIONS: The results enhance the comprehension of healthcare quality and contribute to its academic understanding by validating Lachman's multidimensional quality model from patients' and kin's perspective. The model robustness is increased by including communication as a quality dimension surrounding technical domains and core values. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The key attributes can serve as a holistic framework for healthcare organisations to design their quality management system. An instrument can be developed to measure key attributes.

The cost of a first and second hospital-wide accreditation in Flanders, Belgium.

BACKGROUND: Hospital accreditation is a popular and widely used quality control and improvement instrument. Despite potential benefits, ques-tions are raised whether it constitutes appropriate use of hospitals' limited financial resources. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to calculate the cost of preparing for and undergoing a first and second accreditation by the Joint Commission International or Qualicor Europe in acute-care hospitals. METHOD: All (n = 53) acute-care hospitals in Flanders (Belgium) were invited to participate and report on the costs in preparing for and undergoing a first and/or second accreditation cycle. To measure costs, a questionnaire with six domains and 90 questions was developed based on literature review, policy documents and a multidisciplinary expert group. All costs were recalculated to 2020 euro to correct for inflation and reported as medians with interquartile range. RESULTS: A total of 25 hospitals (47%) participated in the study. Additional investments and direct operational costs for a first accreditation cycle amounted to 879.45 euro (interquartile range: 794.81) per bed and 3.8 full-time equivalent (FTE) per hospital additional new staff members were recruited for coordination and implementation of the trajectory. A second accreditation survey costed remarkably less with a total cost of extra investments and direct operational cost of 222.88 euro (interquartile range: 244.04) per bed and less investment in additional staff (1.50 FTE). Most of the costs were situated in consulting costs and investments in infrastructure. The median total extra cost (direct operational cost and additional investments) amounted to 0.2% of the hospital's operating income for a first accreditation cycle and 0.05% for a second cycle. CONCLUSION: A first accreditation cycle requires a strong financial commitment of hospitals, as many costs result from the preparation in the years prior to an accreditation survey. A second survey is less expensive for hospitals, but still requires a considerable effort in terms of budget and staff. Policy makers should be aware of these significant costs as hospitals are operating with public resources and budget is scarce. The identification of these costs is a necessary building block to evaluate cost-effectiveness of accreditation versus other quality improvement systems and the continuation of these accreditation systems and their costs needs further study and a thorough debate.

A co-creation roadmap towards sustainable quality of care: A multi-method study.

OBJECTIVE: Hospitals demonstrated increased efforts into quality improvement over the past years. Their growing commitment to quality combined with a heterogeneity in perceptions among healthcare stakeholders cause concerns on the sustainable incorporation of quality into the daily workflow. Questions are raised on the drivers for a sustainable hospital quality policy. We aimed to identify drivers and incorporate them into a new, unique roadmap towards sustainable quality of care in hospitals. DESIGN: A multi-method design guided by an eight-phase approach to develop a conceptual framework consists of multiple, iterative phases of data collection, synthesis and validation. Starting with a narrative review followed by a qualitative in-depth analysis and including feedback of national and international healthcare stakeholders. SETTING: Hospitals. RESULTS: The narrative review included 59 relevant papers focusing on quality improvement and the sustainability of these improved quality results. By integrating, synthesising and resynthesizing concepts during thematic and content analysis, the narrative review evolved to an integrated, co-creation roadmap. The Flanders Quality Model (FlaQuM) is presented as a driver diagram that features six primary drivers for a sustainable quality policy: (1) Quality Design and Planning, (2) Quality Control, (3) Quality Improvement, (4) Quality Leadership, (5) Quality Culture and (6) Quality Context. Six primary drivers are described in 19 building blocks (secondary drivers) and 104 evidence-based action fields. CONCLUSIONS: The framework suggests that a manageable number of drivers, building blocks and action fields may support the sustainable incorporation of quality into the daily workflow. Therefore, FlaQuM can serve as a useful roadmap for future sustainable quality policies in hospitals and for future empirical and theoretical work in sustainable quality management.

Unwarranted Between-hospital Variation in Mortality, Readmission, and Length of Stay of Urological Admissions: An Important Trigger for Prioritising Quality Targets.

BACKGROUND: Unwarranted between-hospital variation is a persistent health care quality issue. It is unknown whether urology patients are prone to this variation. OBJECTIVE: To examine between-hospital variation in mortality, readmission, and length of stay for all 22 urological All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Groups (APR-DRGs). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study included administrative data from 320640 urological admissions in 99 (98%) Belgian acute-care hospitals between 2016 and 2018. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We used hierarchical mixed-effect logistic regression models to estimate hospital-specific and APR-DRG-specific risk-standardised rates for in-hospital mortality, 30-d readmission, and length of stay above the APR-DRG-specific 90th percentile. Between-hospital variation was assessed based on the estimated variance components. Associations of outcomes with patient and hospital characteristics and time trends were examined. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Our analysis revealed important between-hospital variation in mortality, readmission, and length of stay for urological pathologies, particularly for medical diagnoses. Significant variation was shown in all three outcomes for kidney and urinary tract infections; other kidney and urinary tract diagnoses, signs, and symptoms; urinary stones and acquired upper urinary tract obstruction; and kidney and urinary tract procedures for nonmalignancy. Lowering of mortality rates in upper-quartile hospitals to the median could potentially save 41.5% of deaths in these hospitals, with the largest absolute gain for kidney and urinary tract infections and kidney and urinary tract malignancy. Limitations included a likely underestimation of readmission rates. CONCLUSIONS: Urological patient outcomes are characterised by unwarranted between-hospital variation. We recommend improvement initiatives to prioritise kidney and urinary tract infections because of significant variation across the three outcomes and the largest potential gain in lives saved. PATIENT SUMMARY: We found notable between-hospital variation in mortality, readmission, and length of stay for urological hospital admissions in Belgium. As much as 41.5% of deaths could potentially be avoided if underperforming hospitals improved. Targeting kidney and urinary tract infections could help reduce variation.

High rates of implant fracture of a generic polished tapered femoral stem.

OBJECTIVES: Cemented polished tapered stems have demonstrated excellent long-term outcomes. Based on this concept, many generic tapered stems have been released into the market. The aim of this study was to evaluate implant-related complications of 1 specific stem design. METHODS: Between 2010 and 2017, 315 total hip replacements were performed using a Fortress stem (Biotechni, La Ciotat, France). Patient records and radiology were retrospectively reviewed for implant-related complications. A failure analysis was performed on the failed Fortress stems in order to determine the cause of premature failure. RESULTS: 7 (2.2%) patients sustained a fracture of the neck of the implant after a mean of 5 years (range 50-81 months). All fractures were atraumatic, originating at the introducer inlet of the stem. All fractured occurred in obese patients (BMI >33 kg/m2) with a small sized prosthesis. Of these, there were 5 135° and 2 125° stems. Fracture risk was 23% (7/30) for patients with a small sized stem and a BMI >30 kg/m2. All cases were revised using a cement-in-cement technique or a cementless modular revision stem. Failure analysis on the retrieved stems revealed a stress riser at the bottom of the introducer inlet. CONCLUSIONS: An alarmingly high rate of early implant fractures was seen using this specific type of cemented stem, particularly when using smaller implant sizes in obese patients. Although based on a proven design, a specific modification led to a stress riser in the neck area, which resulted in a high incidence of implant failure. This series underlines the importance of a stepwise introduction into the market of new orthopaedic devices even when based on established concepts. Generic stems may not behave as the original stem upon which it was designed.

The future of hospital quality of care policy: A multi-stakeholder discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium.

BACKGROUND: Collaboration between policymakers, patients and healthcare workers in hospital quality of care policy setting can improve the integration of new initiatives. The aim of this study was to quantify preferences for various characteristics of a future quality policy in a broad group of stakeholders. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 450 policymakers, clinicians, nurses, patient representatives and hospital board members in Flanders (Belgium) participated in five discrete choice experiments (DCE) on quality control, quality improvement, inspection, patient incidents and transparency. For each DCE, various attributes and levels were defined from a literature review and interviews with 12 international quality and patient safety experts. RESULTS: For the attributes with the highest relative importance, participants exhibited a strong preference for quality control by an independent national organization and coordination of quality improvement initiatives at the level of hospital networks. The individual hospital was chosen over the government for setting up an action plan following patient complaints. Respondents also strongly preferred mandatory reporting of severe patient incidents and transparency by publicly reporting quality indicators at the hospital level. CONCLUSIONS: A future quality model should focus on a multicomponent approach with external quality control, improvement actions on hospital network level and public transparency. DCEs provide an opportunity to incorporate the attitudes and views for individual components of a new policy recommendation.

The History of Quality: From an Eye for an Eye, Through Love, and Towards a Multidimensional Concept for Patients, Kin, and Professionals.

In ancient civilizations, poor quality was dealt with according to the principle of "an eye for an eye." In the modern era we have learned from industry what quality really is. Quality includes standards, protocols, system thinking, and an understanding of variation to ensure good outcomes. In the post-COVID era, quality is not all about predefined specifications but rather about relationships and even love. Quality can now be defined as multidimensional, including person-centered care for patients, kin, and providers. Care should be safe, efficient, effective, timely, equitable, and eco-friendly. High quality is only possible if we include core values of dignity and respect, holistic care, partnership, and kindness with compassion in our daily practice for every stakeholder at every managerial and policy level. PATIENT SUMMARY: Quality of care is a multidimensional concept in which person-centered care is central. The care a patient receives should be safe, efficient, effective, timely, equitable, and eco-friendly. Attention should be given to dignity, respect, kindness, and compassion. There should be a holistic approach that includes partnership with all stakeholders. The only acceptable level of quality a professional should provide is the level they would accept if their loved one were to be the next patient.

A decade of commitment to hospital quality of care: overview of and perceptions on multicomponent quality improvement policies involving accreditation, public reporting, inspection and pay-for-performance.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) initiatives such as accreditation, public reporting, inspection and pay-for-performance are increasingly being implemented globally. In Flanders, Belgium, a government policy for acute-care hospitals incorporates aforementioned initiatives. Currently, questions are raised on the sustainability of the present policy. OBJECTIVE: First, to summarise the various initiatives hospitals have adopted under government encouragement between 2008 and 2019. Second, to study the perspectives of healthcare stakeholders on current government policy. METHODS: In this multi-method study, we collected data on QI initiative implementation from governmental and institutional sources and through an online survey among hospital quality managers. We compiled an overview of QI initiative implementation for all Flemish acute-care hospitals between 2008 (n = 62) and 2019 (n = 53 after hospital mergers). Stakeholder perspectives were assessed via a second survey available to all healthcare employees and a focus group with healthcare policy experts was consulted. Variation between professions was assessed. RESULTS: QI initiatives have been increasingly implemented, especially from 2016 onwards, with the majority (87%) of hospitals having obtained a first accreditation label and all hospitals publicly reporting performance indicators, receiving regular inspections and having entered the pay-for-performance initiative. On the topic of external international accreditation, overall attitudes within the survey were predominantly neutral (36.2%), while 34.5% expressed positive and 29.3% negative views towards accreditation. In examining specific professional groups in-depth, we learned 58% of doctors regarded accreditation negatively, while doctors were judged to be the largest contributors to quality according to the majority of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals have demonstrated increased efforts into QI, especially since 2016, while perceptions on currently implemented QI initiatives among healthcare stakeholders are heterogeneous. To assure quality of care remains a top-priority for acute-care hospitals, we recommend a revision of the current multicomponent quality policy where the adoption of all initiatives is streamlined and co-created bottom-up.

Is a hospital quality policy based on a triad of accreditation, public reporting and inspection evidence-based? A narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Since 2009, hospital quality policy in Flanders, Belgium, is built around a quality-of-care triad, which encompasses accreditation, public reporting (PR) and inspection. Policy makers are currently reflecting on the added value of this triad. METHODS: We performed a narrative review of the literature published between 2009 and 2020 to examine the evidence base of the impact accreditation, PR and inspection, both individually and combined, has on patient processes and outcomes. The following patient outcomes were examined: mortality, length of stay, readmissions, patient satisfaction, adverse outcomes, failure to rescue, adherence to process measures and risk aversion. The impact of accreditation, PR and inspection on these outcomes was evaluated as either positive, neutral (i.e. no impact observed or mixed results reported) or negative. OBJECTIVES: To assess the current evidence base on the impact of accreditation, PR and inspection on patient processes and outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 69 studies, of which 40 were on accreditation, 24 on PR, three on inspection and two on accreditation and PR concomitantly. Identified studies reported primarily low-level evidence (level IV, n = 53) and were heterogeneous in terms of implemented programmes and patient populations (often narrow in PR research). Overall, a neutral categorization was determined in 30 articles for accreditation, 23 for PR and four for inspection. Ten of these recounted mixed results. For accreditation, a high number (n = 12) of positive research on adherence to process measures was discovered. CONCLUSION: The individual impact of accreditation, PR and inspection, the core of Flemish hospital quality, was found to be limited on patient outcomes. Future studies should investigate the combined effect of multiple quality improvement strategies.

Six years of measuring patient experiences in Belgium: Limited improvement and lack of association with improvement strategies.

OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in patient experiences in the period 2014-2019, describe improvement strategies implemented by hospitals in the same period, and study associations between patient experiences and implemented strategies. DESIGN: Multi-center retrospective region-wide observational design. SETTING: Flanders, Belgium. PARTICIPANTS: 44 out of 46 Flemish acute-care hospitals publicly reporting patient experiences via the Flemish Patient Survey (FPS). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Primary outcomes were the two global FPS ratings: percentage of patients rating the hospital 9 or 10 and percentage of patients definitely recommending the hospital. Secondary outcomes were the average top-box score percentages for each of the 8 remaining dimensions of the FPS. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2019, there was a significant improvement in patients scoring the hospital 9 or 10 (56% to 61%) and patients definitely recommending (67% to 70%) the hospital. Significant increases in patient experiences over time were also observed in other dimensions, except for the dimension discharge. Hospital key informants reported various improvement strategies related to patient experiences with care and the FPS. Feedback to nursing wards (n = 44, 100%) and clinicians (n = 39, 89%) were most common. Overall, most improvement strategies were not or only weakly associated with patient experience ratings in 2019 and changes in ratings over time. Still, positive associations were discovered between the strategies 'nursing ward interventions' and 'hospital wide education' and recommendation of the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Patient experiences have improved modestly in Flemish acute-care hospitals. Hospitals report to have invested in patient experience improvement strategies but positive associations between such strategies and FPS scores are weak, although there is potential in further exploring nursing ward interventions and hospital wide education. Hospitals should continue their efforts to improve the patient's experience, but with a more targeted approach, taking the lessons learned on the efficacy of strategies into consideration.