Improving the Quality of Care in Care Homes Using the Quality Improvement Collaborative Approach: Lessons Learnt from Six Projects Conducted in the UK and The Netherlands.

The Breakthrough Series Quality Improvement Collaborative (QIC) initiative is a well-developed and widely used approach, but most of what we know about it has come from healthcare settings. In this article, those leading QICs to improve care in care homes provide detailed accounts of six QICs and share their learning of applying the QIC approach in the care home sector. Overall, five care home-specific lessons were learnt: (i) plan for the resources needed to support collaborative teams with collecting, processing, and interpreting data; (ii) create encouraging and safe working environments to help collaborative team members feel valued; (iii) recruit collaborative teams, QIC leads, and facilitators who have established relationships with care homes; (iv) regularly check project ideas are aligned with team members' job roles, responsibilities, and priorities; and (v) work flexibly and accept that planned activities may need adapting as the project progresses. These insights are targeted at teams delivering QICs in care homes. These insights demonstrate the need to consider the care home context when applying improvement tools and techniques in this setting.

An evaluation of a safety improvement intervention in care homes in England: a participatory qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: A growing proportion of older people live in care homes and are at high risk of preventable harm. This study describes a participatory qualitative evaluation of a complex safety improvement intervention, comprising training, performance measurement and culture-change elements, on the safety of care provided for residents. DESIGN: A participatory qualitative study. SETTING: Ninety care homes in one geographical locality in southern England. PARTICIPANTS: A purposeful sample of care home managers, front-line staff, residents, quality improvement facilitators and trainers, local government and health service commissioners, and an embedded researcher. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in care home culture and work processes, assessed using documentary analysis, interviews, observations and surveys and analysed using a framework-based thematic approach. RESULTS: Participation in the programme appears to have led to changes in the value that staff place on resident safety and to changes in their working practices, in particular in relation to their desire to proactively manage resident risk and their willingness to use data to examine established practice. The results suggest that there is a high level of commitment among care home staff to address the problem of preventable harm. Mobilisation of this commitment appears to benefit from external facilitation and the introduction of new methods and tools. CONCLUSIONS: An evidence-based approach to reducing preventable harm in care homes, comprising an intervention with both technical and social components, can lead to changes in staff priorities and practices which have the potential to improve outcomes for people who live in care homes.

Assessing the safety culture of care homes: a multimethod evaluation of the adaptation, face validity and feasibility of the Manchester Patient Safety Framework.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the cultural characteristics of healthcare organisations is widely recognised to be an important component of patient safety. A growing number of vulnerable older people are living in care homes but little attention has been paid to safety culture in this sector. In this study, we aimed to adapt the Manchester Patient Safety Framework (MaPSaF), a commonly used tool in the health sector, for use in care homes and then to test its face validity and preliminary feasibility as a tool for developing a better understanding of safety culture in the sector. METHODS: As part of a wider improvement programme to reduce the prevalence of common safety incidents among residents in 90 care homes in England, we adapted MaPSaF and carried out a multimethod participatory evaluation of its face validity and feasibility for care home staff. Data were collected using participant observation, interviews, documentary analysis and a survey, and were analysed thematically. RESULTS: MaPSaF required considerable adaptation in terms of its length, language and content in order for it to be perceived to be acceptable and useful to care home staff. The changes made reflected differences between the health and care home sectors in terms of the local context and wider policy environment, and the expectations, capacity and capabilities of the staff. Based on this preliminary study, the adapted tool, renamed 'Culture is Key', appears to have reasonable face validity and, with adequate facilitation, it is usable by front-line staff and useful in raising their awareness about safety issues. CONCLUSIONS: 'Culture is Key' is a new tool which appears to have acceptable face validity and feasibility to be used by care home staff to deepen their understanding of the safety culture of their organisations and therefore has potential to contribute to improving care for vulnerable older people.