Call for Action to Target Interhospital Variation in Cardiovascular Mortality, Readmissions, and Length-of-Stay: Results of a National Population Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Excessive interhospital variation threatens healthcare quality. Data on variation in patient outcomes across the whole cardiovascular spectrum are lacking. We aimed to examine interhospital variability for 28 cardiovascular All Patient Refined-Diagnosis-related Groups (APR-DRGs). METHODS: We studied 103,299 cardiovascular admissions in 99 (98%) Belgian acute-care hospitals between 2012 and 2018. Using generalized linear mixed models, we estimated hospital-specific and APR-DRG-specific risk-standardized rates for in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmissions, and length-of-stay above the APR-DRG-specific 90th percentile. Interhospital variation was assessed based on estimated variance components and time trends between the 2012-2014 and 2016-2018 periods were examined. RESULTS: There was strong evidence of interhospital variation, with statistically significant variation across the 3 outcomes for 5 APR-DRGs after accounting for patient and hospital factors: percutaneous cardiovascular procedures with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, hypertension, angina pectoris, and arrhythmia. Medical diagnoses, with in particular hypertension, heart failure, angina pectoris, and cardiac arrest, showed strongest variability, with hypertension displaying the largest median odds ratio for mortality (2.51). Overall, hospitals performing at the upper-quartile level should achieve improvements to the median level, and an annual 633 deaths, 322 readmissions, and 1578 extended hospital stays could potentially be avoided. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of interhospital variation highlights important outcome differences that are not explained by known patient or hospital characteristics. Targeting variation is therefore a promising strategy to improve cardiovascular care. Considering their treatment in multidisciplinary teams, policy makers, and managers should prioritize heart failure, hypertension, cardiac arrest, and angina pectoris improvements by targeting guideline implementation outside the cardiology department.

A multiphase, multicentre development and validation of two maturity tools assessing the implementation of the FlaQuM co-creation roadmap.

As part of the new Flanders Quality Model (FlaQuM) towards sustainable quality management systems, a co-creation roadmap with 6 primary drivers and 19 building blocks that guides healthcare organizations has been developed. Currently, no assessment tool is available to monitor hospitals' quality management systems implementation according to this co-creation roadmap. Therefore, we aimed to measure the maturity of the implementation of the FlaQuM co-creation roadmap in hospitals. A three-phase approach in co-design with 19 hospitals started with defining the scope, followed by establishing content validity through a literature review, involvement of content experts (n = 47), 20 focus groups with content experts (n = 79), and a Delphi round with healthcare quality managers (n = 19) to test the content validity index. Construct validity was assessed by confirmatory factor analyses and convergent validity by Spearman's ρ correlation coefficients. Based on 17 included existing maturity instruments and subcomponents of content experts, two maturity tools were developed according to the implementation of the FlaQuM co-creation roadmap: (i) a maturity matrix with 52 subcomponents and (ii) a co-creation scan with 19 statements. The overall scale-content validity index varied between 93.3% and 90.0% in terms of relevance and clarity, respectively. In a sample of 119 healthcare professionals, factor analyses revealed a six-factor structure and 16 (84.2%) of the 19 hypothesis for testing convergent validity between both maturity tools were statistically significant. Measuring the implementation of the FlaQuM co-creation roadmap and monitoring its maturity over time should be feasible by using these comprehensive maturity tools in hospitals. Results of both tools should be able to describe the current state of hospitals' implementation of the co-creation roadmap as basis for strategic improvement plans and next steps.

Quality indicators for ambulatory colectomy: literature search and expert consensus.

BACKGROUND: Care for patients undergoing elective colectomy has become increasingly standardized using Enhanced Recovery Programs (ERP). ERP, encorporating minimally invasive surgery (MIS), decreased postoperative morbidity and length of stay (LOS). However, disruptive changes are needed to safely introduce colectomy in an ambulatory or same-day discharge (SDD) setting. Few research groups showed the feasibility of ambulatory colectomy. So far, no minimum standards for the quality of care of this procedure have been defined. This study aims to identify quality indicators (QIs) that assess the quality of care for ambulatory colectomy. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify recommendations for ambulatory colectomy. Based on that search, a set of QIs was identified and categorized into seven domains: preparation of the patient (pre-admission), anesthesia, surgery, in-hospital monitoring, home monitoring, feasibility, and clinical outcomes. This list was presented to a panel of international experts (surgeons and anesthesiologists) in a 1 round Delphi to assess the relevance of the proposed indicators. RESULTS: Based on the literature search (2010-2021), 3841 results were screened on title and abstract for relevant information. Nine papers were withheld to identify the first set of QIs (n = 155). After excluding duplicates and outdated QIs, this longlist was narrowed down to 88 indicators. Afterward, consensus was reached in a 1 round Delphi on a final list of 32 QIs, aiming to be a comprehensive set to evaluate the quality of ambulatory colectomy care. CONCLUSION: We propose a list of 32 QI to guide and evaluate the implementation of ambulatory colectomy.

How different countries respond to adverse events whilst patients' rights are protected.

Patient safety is high on the policy agenda internationally. Learning from safety incidents is a core component in achieving the important goal of increasing patient safety. This study explores the legal frameworks in the countries to promote reporting, disclosure, and supporting healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in safety incidents. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted to ascertain an overview of the legal frameworks at national level, as well as relevant policies. ERNST (The European Researchers' Network Working on Second Victims) group peer-reviewed data collected from countries was performed to validate information. Information from 27 countries was collected and analyzed, giving a response rate of 60%. A reporting system for patient safety incidents was in place in 85.2% (N = 23) of countries surveyed, though few (37%, N = 10) were focused on systems-learning. In about half of the countries (48.1%, N = 13) open disclosure depends on the initiative of HCPs. The tort liability system was common in most countries. No-fault compensation schemes and alternative forms of redress were less common. Support for HCPs involved in patient safety incidents was extremely limited, with just 11.1% (N = 3) of participating countries reporting that supports were available in all healthcare institutions. Despite progress in the patient safety movement worldwide, the findings suggest that there are considerable differences in the approach to the reporting and disclosure of patient safety incidents. Additionally, models of compensation vary limiting patients' access to redress. Finally, the results highlight the need for comprehensive support for HCPs involved in safety incidents.

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.

The impact of emotional support on healthcare workers and students coping with COVID-19, and other SARS-CoV pandemics - a mixed-methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Pandemics such as COVID-19 pose threats to the physical safety of healthcare workers and students. They can have traumatic experiences affecting their personal and professional life. Increasing rates of burnout, substance abuse, depression, and suicide among healthcare workers have already been identified, thus making mental health and psychological wellbeing of the healthcare workers a major issue. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize the characteristics of emotional support programs and interventions targeted to healthcare workers and students since the onset of COVID-19 and other SARS-CoV pandemics and to describe the effectiveness and experiences of these programs. METHOD: This was a mixed method systematic review. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and the review was registered on PROSPERO [CRD42021262837]. Searches were conducted using Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases. The COVIDENCE systematic review management system was used for data selection and extraction by two independent reviewers. The JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) critical appraisal tools were used to assess the quality of selected studies by two additional reviewers. Finally, data extraction and narrative analysis were conducted. RESULTS: The search retrieved 3161 results including 1061 duplicates. After screening, a total of 19 articles were included in this review. Participants in studies were nurses, physicians, other hospital staff, and undergraduate medical students mostly working on the front-line with COVID-19 patients. Publications included RCTs (n = 4), quasi-experimental studies (n = 2), cross-sectional studies (n = 6), qualitative interview studies (n = 3), and systematic reviews (n = 4). Most (63.4%) of the interventions used online or digital solutions. Interventions mostly showed good effectiveness (support-seeking, positive emotions, reduction of distress symptoms etc.) and acceptance and were experienced as helpful, but there were some conflicting results. CONCLUSION: Healthcare organizations have developed support strategies focusing on providing emotional support for these healthcare workers and students, but it is difficult to conclude whether one program offers distinct benefit compared to the others. More research is needed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of emotional support interventions for health workers.

In search of an international multidimensional action plan for second victim support: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Insights around second victims (SV) and patient safety has been growing over time. An overview of the available evidence is lacking. This review aims to describe (i) the impact a patient safety incident can have and (ii) how healthcare professionals can be supported in the aftermath of a patient safety incident. METHODS: A literature search in Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL was performed between 1 and 2010 and 26 November 2020 with studies on SV as inclusion criteria. To be included in this review the studies must include healthcare professionals involved in the aftermath of a patient safety incident. RESULTS: In total 104 studies were included. SVs can suffer from both psychosocial (negative and positive), professional and physical reactions. Support can be provided at five levels. The first level is prevention (on individual and organizational level) referring to measures taken before a patient safety incident happens. The other four levels focus on providing support in the aftermath of a patient safety incident, such as self-care of individuals and/or team, support by peers and triage, structured support by an expert in the field (professional support) and structured clinical support. CONCLUSION: The impact of a patient safety incident on healthcare professionals is broad and diverse. Support programs should be organized at five levels, starting with preventive actions followed by self-care, support by peers, structured professional support and clinical support. This multilevel approach can now be translated in different countries, networks and organizations based on their own culture, support history, structure and legal context. Next to this, they should also include the stage of recovery in which the healthcare professional is located in.

Convergent Validity of 2 Widely Used Methodologies for Calculating the Hospital Standardized Mortality Ratio in Flanders, Belgium.

OBJECTIVES: To assess their construct validity, we compared results from 2 models used for estimating hospital standardized mortality ratios (HSMRs) in Belgium. The method of the Flemish Hospital Network (FHN) is based on a logistic regression for each of the 64 All Patient Refined Diagnosis-Related Groups that explain 80% of mortality and uses the Elixhauser score to correct for comorbidities. (H)SMRs published on the 3M-Benchmark-Portal are calculated by a simpler indirect standardization for All Patient Refined Diagnosis-Related Groups and risk of mortality (ROM) at discharge. METHODS: We used administrative data from all eligible hospital admissions in 22 Flemish hospitals between 2016 and 2019 (FHN, n = 682,935; 3M, n = 2,122,305). We evaluated model discrimination and accuracy and assessed agreement in estimated HSMRs between methods. RESULTS: The Spearman correlation between HSMRs generated by the FHN model and the standard 3M model was 0.79. Although 2 of 22 hospitals showed opposite classification results, that is, an HSMR significantly <1 according to the FHN method but significantly >1 according to the 3M model, classification agreement between methods was significant (agreement for 59.1% of hospitals, κ = 0.45). The 3M model ( c statistic = 0.96, adjusted Brier score = 26%) outperformed the FHN model (0.87, 17%). However, using ROM at admission instead of at discharge in the 3M model significantly reduced model performance ( c statistic = 0.94, adjusted Brier score = 21%), but yielded similar HSMR estimates and eliminated part of the discrepancy with FHN results. CONCLUSIONS: Results of both models agreed relatively well, supporting convergent validity. Whereas the FHN method only adjusts for disease severity at admission, the ROM indicator of the 3M model includes diagnoses not present on admission. Although diagnosis codes generated by complications during hospitalization have the tendency to increase the predictive performance of a model, these should not be included in risk adjustment procedures.

Message to junior and less junior clinicians: let the core values of care guide your leadership!

Recently, I experienced what care is all about. I became a patient and noticed that my field of expertise, quality of care and patient safety, is not that easy in daily practice. In this Leadership in the Mirror, I reflect on my own experience and describe how four core values of care can hopefully guide the leadership of junior and less junior clinicians. The essay is adapted from the commencement speech I gave in June 2022 at the Faculty of Medicine at KU Leuven University and introduces a new quality framework that highlights the progressions of healthcare towards personalisation of care, with a focus on the whole person as an individual, rather than a restricted view on the patient's disease.

The determinants of expert opinion in the development of care pathways: insights from an exploratory cluster analysis.

BACKGROUND: We performed a secondary exploratory cluster analysis on the data collected from the validation phase of the study leading to the development of the model care pathway (CP) for Myasthenia Gravis (MG), in which a panel of 85 international experts were asked some characteristics about themselves and their opinion about the model CP. Our aim was to identify which characteristics of the experts play a role in the genesis of their opinion. METHODS: We extracted the questions probing an opinion and those describing a characteristic of the expert from the original questionnaire. We performed a multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) and a subsequent hierarchical clustering on principal component (HCPC) on the opinion variables, integrating the characteristic variables as supplementary (predicted). RESULTS: After reducing the dimensionality of the questionnaire to three dimensions we noticed that the not-appropriateness judgement of the clinical activities may overlap with the completeness one. From the HCPC it seems that the working setting of the expert may play a crucial role in determining the opinion about the setting of the sub-processes of MG: shifting from a cluster where the experts do not work in sub-specialist settings to one where the experts are working in them, the opinion changes accordingly from a mono-disciplinary setting to a multi-disciplinary one. Another interesting result is that the experience in neuromuscular diseases (NMD) measured in years and the expert typology (whether general neurologist or NMD expert) seem not to contribute significantly to the opinions. CONCLUSIONS: These findings might indicate a poor ability of the expert to discriminate what is not appropriate from what is not complete. Also, the opinion of the expert might be influenced by the working setting, but not by the experience in NMD (as measured in years).

An Evidence and Consensus-Based Definition of Second Victim: A Strategic Topic in Healthcare Quality, Patient Safety, Person-Centeredness and Human Resource Management.

The concept of second victims (SV) was introduced 20 years ago to draw attention to healthcare professionals involved in patient safety incidents. The objective of this paper is to advance the theoretical conceptualization and to develop a common definition. A literature search was performed in Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL (October 2010 to November 2020). The description of SV was extracted regarding three concepts: (1) involved persons, (2) content of action and (3) impact. Based on these concepts, a definition was proposed and discussed within the ERNST-COST consortium in 2021 and 2022. An international group of experts finalized the definition. In total, 83 publications were reviewed. Based on expert consensus, a second victim was defined as: "Any health care worker, directly or indirectly involved in an unanticipated adverse patient event, unintentional healthcare error, or patient injury and who becomes victimized in the sense that they are also negatively impacted". The proposed definition can be used to help to reduce the impact of incidents on both healthcare professionals and organizations, thereby indirectly improve healthcare quality, patient safety, person-centeredness and human resource management.

Healthcare Students and Medical Residents as Second Victims: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: The term second victim (SV) describes healthcare professionals who remain traumatized after being involved in a patient safety incident (PSI). They can experience various emotional, psychological, and physical symptoms. The phenomenon is quite common; it has been estimated that half of hospital workers will be an SV at least once in their career. Because recent literature has reported high prevalence (>30%) among nursing students, we studied the phenomenon among the whole population of healthcare students. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study with an online questionnaire among nursing students, medical students, and resident physicians at the teaching hospital of the University of the Piemonte Orientale located in Novara, Italy. The study included 387 individuals: 128 nursing students, 174 medical students, and 85 residents. RESULTS: We observed an overall PSI prevalence rate of 25.58% (lowest in medical students, 14.37%; highest in residents, 43.53%). Of these, 62.63% experienced symptoms typical of an SV. The most common temporary symptom was the feeling of working badly (51.52%), whereas the most common lasting symptom was hypervigilance (51.52%). Notably, none of the resident physicians involved in a PSI spoke to the patient or the patient's relatives. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlighted the risk incurred by healthcare students of becoming an SV, with a possible significant impact on their future professional and personal lives. Therefore, we suggest that academic institutions should play a more proactive role in providing support to those involved in a PSI.

Variation in stroke care at the hospital level: A cross-sectional multicenter study.

Introduction: Stroke is one of the leading causes of mortality and disability. Improving patient outcomes can be achieved by improving stroke care and adherence to guidelines. Since wide variation in adherence rates for stroke guidelines still exists, we aimed to describe and compare stroke care variability within Belgian hospitals. Materials and methods: An observational, multicenter study was performed in 29 Belgian hospitals. We retrospectively collected patient characteristics, quality indicators, and time metrics from the last 30 consecutive patients per hospital, diagnosed with ischemic stroke in 2019 with structured questionnaires. Mean adherence ratios (%) ± SD (minimum - maximum) were calculated. Results: We analyzed 870 patient records from 29 hospitals. Results showed large inter- and intrahospitals variations in adherence for various indicators. Almost all the patients received brain imaging (99.7%) followed by admission at a stroke unit in 82.9% of patients. Of patients not receiving thrombolysis, 92.5% of patients were started on antithrombotic drugs. Indicators with moderate median adherence but large interhospital variability were glycemia monitoring [82.3 ± 16.7% (26.7-100.0%)], performing clinical neurological examination and documentation of stroke severity [63.1 ± 36.8% (0-100%)], and screening for activities of daily living [51.1 ± 40.3% (0.0-100.0%)]. Other indicators lacked adequate adherence: swallowing function screening [37.0 ± 30.4% (0.0-93.3%)], depression screening [20.2 ± 35.8% (0.0-100%)], and timely body temperature measurement [15.1 ± 17.0% (0.0-60%)]. Conclusion: We identified high adherence to guidelines for some indicators, but lower rates with large interhospital variability for other recommendations also based on robust evidence. Improvement strategies should be implemented to improve the latter.

A Comparative Study Measuring the Difference of Healthcare Workers Reactions Among Those Involved in a Patent Safety Incident and Healthcare Professionals While Working During COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe the differences and similarities in the reaction of the healthcare worker involved in a patient safety incident or during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also compared the differences in support they need. METHODS: A secondary data analysis was performed based on 2 cross-sectional survey studies. One study evaluated the impact of patient safety incidents on healthcare professionals, and the other evaluated the impact of COVID-19. Measurements on mental health reactions and an evaluation of the experienced support system were compared between 883 doctors and 1970 nurses working in different hospitals. RESULTS: Anxiety, difficulties concentrating, doubting knowledge and skills, feeling on their own, feeling unhappy and dejected, feeling uncertain in team, flashbacks, hypervigilance, sleep deprivation, stress and wanting to quit profession were statistically higher in the COVID-19-related groups. Second victims tend to speak about it with their own/close colleagues, whereas healthcare workers working during the COVID-19 pandemic talk more often to their partner and friends. Only a small number talked to a psychologist, but the number who needed to talk to a psychologist but did not is higher than the number who did talk to a psychologist or used professional support in all 5 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of healthcare workers is larger than after being involved in a patient safety incident. There is the need for an adequate support system, and the mental health of all healthcare workers needs to be considered. Partners and friend play a more important role in the support experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, and there is an important need for professional help.

The evolving personal, professional and physical impact on healthcare professionals during three COVID-19 waves: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to huge pressure on not only healthcare systems, but also on healthcare professionals. OBJECTIVE: As the pandemic continues, the aim of this study is to evaluate how 10 reactions of healthcare professionals evolved during the first 18 months of COVID-19. METHODS: A repeated cross-sectional study was performed with eight measurement points between April 2020 and September 2021 in Belgium. Participants were asked how frequently (on a scale of 0-10) they experienced positive and negative reactions during normal circumstances and during past week, referred to as before and during COVID-19, respectively. These reactions were stress, fatigue, difficulty sleeping, muscle strain, hypervigilance, leaving profession, headache, doubting knowledge and skills, flashbacks and fear. RESULTS: In total, 13 308 respondents were included in our study. During both the first (March 2020) and second COVID-19 peak (November 2020), the measured personal, professional and physical reactions were significantly higher compared to before COVID-19. The third wave in April 2021 was shorter and less severe with regard to hospital admissions and deaths, yet an important impact on healthcare professionals could still be observed. 'Fatigue,' 'stress,' 'difficulty sleeping' and 'muscle strain' are the most worrying reactions in September 2021, which are increasing compared to the previous measurements. CONCLUSION: Our results showed that acute stress reactions decreased over time but that chronic stress reactions and professional reactions, such as 'intent to leave,' increased. Healthcare organizations and policy makers should realize that 18 months after the start of COVID-19 almost all of the measured reactions continue to be more prevalent than before COVID-19. Moreover, the continuous increase over the last three measurement periods of the number of healthcare professionals who want to leave their profession is alarming. Continuous follow-up of the personal, professional and physical reactions is more than necessary.

Perceptions on Oral Care Needs, Barriers, and Practices Among Managers and Staff in Long-Term Care Settings for Older People in Flanders, Belgium: A Cross-sectional Survey.

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to explore oral health perception and oral care needs, barriers, and current practices as perceived by managers and staff in long-term care organizations for older people in Flanders. Research Design and Methods: This is a cross-sectional study where 2 questionnaires were developed, one for managers and one for caregivers, and were validated in Flemish long-term care organizations. Descriptive analyses and multivariable generalized linear models evaluated the main outcomes and their associations with determinants such as the size of the organization, the presence of an oral health policy, collaboration with a dentist, among others. Results: A total of 145 managers and 197 caregivers completed the questionnaire. More than 50% of caregivers and managers perceived their residents' oral health as mediocre to good. Collaboration with a dentist (B = 0.84) and oral health care involvement (B = 0.08) within the organization showed a strong association with a positive perception of oral health. Lack of time (57%) and care resistance (70%) were the most important barriers perceived by caregivers. Guidelines concerning oral care were not available or were unknown to 52% of the caregivers. Having an oral health policy within the organization was strongly associated with the correct use of guidelines for daily care of natural teeth (B = 1.25) and of dental prosthesis (B = 1.15). Discussion and Implications: The results emphasize that collaborating with a dentist and the presence of an oral health policy in care organizations are important for a positive perception of the oral health of the residents and for the adoption of guidelines by caregivers and managers. In addition, training on handling care refusal should be included in the overall training. These results are crucial input for the development of a methodology for implementing a structured oral care policy in long-term care facilities.

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.

A Breakthrough Improvement Collaborative Significantly Reduces Hospital Stay After Elective Colectomy for Cancer Across a Healthcare System.

OBJECTIVE: This multicenter study aimed to assess (1) the effect of an improvement collaborative on enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol adherence after elective colectomy and (2) the association between adherence and patient outcomes. BACKGROUND: ERAS pathways provide a framework to standardize care processes and improve postoperative outcomes in patients after colon surgery. Despite growing evidence of its effectiveness, adherence to these guidelines remains a challenge. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter collaborative was initiated throughout 11 hospitals in Flanders, Belgium. A structured audit tool was used to study patient outcomes and adherence to 12 ERAS components, defined by the collaborative. Three retrospective audits (based on patient record analysis) were conducted in 2017, 2019, and 2021, respectively. RESULTS: Overall, 740 patients were included (45.4% female; mean±SD age, 71±12 years). The overall adherence increased from 42.8% in 2017 to 58.4% in 2019 and 69.2% in 2021. Compared with low adherence, length of stay was increasingly reduced by 1.3 days for medium [95% confidence interval (95% CI): -2.5; 0.0], 3.6 days for high (95% CI: -4.9; -2.2), and up to 4.4 days for very high adherence (95% CI: -6.1; -2.7). Corresponding odds ratios for postoperative complications were 0.62 (95% CI: 0.33; 1.17), 0.19 (95% CI: 0.09; 0.43), and 0.14 (95% CI: 0.05; 0.39), respectively. No increase in 30-day readmissions was observed. CONCLUSIONS: A peer-constructed improvement collaborative effectively increases adherence to an ERAS protocol in individual hospitals. Across time, length of stay and postoperative complications decreased significantly, and a dose-response relationship was observed.

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.