The "House of Trust". A framework for quality healthcare and leadership.

In healthcare, improvement leaders have been inspired by the frameworks from industry which have been adapted into control systems and certifications to improve quality of care for people. To address the challenge to regain trust in healthcare design and delivery, we propose a conceptual framework, i.e. the "House of Trust". This House brings together the Juran Trilogy, the emerging concept of co-production in quality management and the multidimensional definition of quality, which describes core values as an integral part of the system to deliver person- and kin-centered care. In the "House of Trust" patients, their kin, healthcare providers, executives and managers feel at home, with a sense of belonging. If we want to build a care organization that inspires and radiates confidence to all stakeholders, highlighting the basic interactions between front- and back-office is required. An organization with both well-organized back- and front-offices can enable all to benefit from the trust each of them needs and deserves. A quality system does not depend on government inspection and regulations nor on external accreditation to develop itself into a House of Trust. Success will only be achieved if all involved continuously question themselves about the technical dimensions of quality and their core values during the "moment of truth".

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.

Effects of the Italian Law on Patient Safety and Health Professional Responsibilities Five Years after Its Approval by the Italian Parliament.

The application of the Italian law No. 24/2017, which focused on patient safety and medical liability, in the Italian National Health Service has been evaluated by a survey conducted five years after the promulgation of the law. The law required the establishment of healthcare risk management and patient safety centers in all Italian regions and the appointment of a Clinical Risk Manager (CRM) in all Italian public and private healthcare facilities. This study demonstrates that five years after the approval of the law, it has not yet been fully implemented. The survey revealed a lack of adequate permanent staff in all the Regional Centers, with two employees on average per Center. Few meetings were held with the Regional Healthcare System decision-makers with less than four meetings per year. This reduces the capacity to carry out functions. In addition, the role of the CRMs is weak in most healthcare facilities. More than 20% of CRMs have other roles in the same organization. Some important tasks have reduced application, e.g., assessment of the inappropriateness risk (reported only by 35.3% of CRM) and use of patient safety indicators for monitoring hospitals (20.6% of CRM). The function of the Regional Centers during the COVID-19 pandemic was limited despite the CRMs being very committed. The CRMs units undertake limited research and have reduced collaboration with citizen associations. Despite most of the CRMs believing that the law has had an important role in improving patient safety, 70% of them identified clinicians' resistance to change and lack of funding dedicated to implementing the law as the main barriers to the management of risk.

Developing future clinical leaders in patient safety: the Irish experience.

INTRODUCTION: It is 20 years since the Institute of Medicine advocated a national approach to improve care and patient safety. Patient safety infrastructure has greatly improved in certain countries. In Ireland, patient safety infrastructure is in ongoing development. To contribute to this, the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland/International Society for Quality in Healthcare Scholar in Residence Programme was launched in 2016. This programme aims to improve patient safety and develop a movement of future clinician leaders to drive improvements in patient safety and the quality of care. METHODS: Doctors in postgraduate training complete a year-long immersive mentorship. This involves monthly group meetings with key patient safety opinion makers, one-on-one mentorship, leadership courses, conference attendance and presentations. Each scholar undertakes a quality improvement (QI) project. RESULTS: A QI project was associated with a decrease in caesarean section rates from 13.7% to 7.6% (p=0.0002) among women in spontaneous labour at term with a cephalic presentation. Other projects are ongoing. CONCLUSION: Medical error, patient safety and QI must be addressed comprehensively at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. We believe the Irish mentorship programme will help to change the paradigm and improve patient safety.

Patient safety implications of wearing a face mask for prevention in the era of COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and consensus recommendations.

In the past, the use of face masks in western countries was essentially limited to occupational health. Now, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, mask-wearing has been recommended as a public health intervention. As potential side effects and some contraindications are emerging, we reviewed the literature to assess the impact of them in daily life on patient safety and to provide appropriate guidelines and recommendations. We performed a systematic review of studies investigating physiological impact, safety, and risk of masks in predefined categories of patients, which have been published in peer-reviewed journals with no time and language restrictions. Given the heterogeneity of studies, results were analyzed thematically. We used PRISMA guidelines to report our findings. Wearing a N95 respirator is more associated with worse side effects than wearing a surgical mask with the following complications: breathing difficulties (reduced FiO2, SpO2, PaO2 increased ETCO2, PaCO2), psychiatric symptoms (panic attacks, anxiety) and skin reactions. These complications are related to the duration of use and/or disease severity. Difficulties in communication is another issue to be considered especially with young children, older person and people with hearing impairments. Even if benefits of wearing face masks exceed the discomfort, it is recommended to take an "air break" after 1-2 h consecutively of mask-wearing. However, well-designed prospective studies are needed. The COVID-19 pandemic could represent a unique opportunity for collecting large amount of real-world data.

Lessons post-COVID from national and international approaches to safety and quality in healthcare.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a challenge as well as an opportunity for healthcare. The pandemic has exposed the inherent weaknesses in health systems globally while, at the same time, revealing strengths on which post-pandemic health systems can be built. We propose lessons on improving quality and safety post-pandemic from a global perspective based on recent policy publications and our global experience. Nine possible lessons are discussed. These lessons can ensure that healthcare does not return to the old normal, but rather builds on what we have learnt as we deliver on the Sustainable Development Goals and universal health coverage. Quality and safety are an essential component of healthcare strategy. Post-pandemic systems require a transparent compassionate culture, with integration of care at its core. The workforce must be trained in the skills to improve care, and patient and healthcare worker protection (both physically and psychologically) needs to be a given. Any development of systems will best be co-produced with the people who receive and deliver care in an equal partnership. Finally, the new systems need to be conscious of emerging threats (such as the challenge of climate change), building sustainable health systems that also address the structural inequities that currently exist.

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.

Climate change, environmental sustainability and health care quality.

The challenges for health care continue to grow and in the 21st century healthcare policymakers and providers will need to respond to the developing impact of global warming and the environmental impact of healthcare service delivery. This cannot be viewed apart from the current Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, which is likely to be linked to the climate crisis.

Perspectives of paediatric hospital staff on factors influencing the sustainability and spread of a safety quality improvement programme.

OBJECTIVE: Situation Awareness For Everyone (SAFE) is a quality improvement programme aiming to improve situation awareness in paediatric clinical teams. The aim of our study was to examine hospital staff perceptions of the facilitators and barriers/challenges to the sustaining and subsequent spread of the huddle, the key intervention of the SAFE programme. SETTING: Interviews were held on two wards in two children hospitals and on two children wards in two district general hospitals. METHOD: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 23 staff members from four National Health Service paediatric wards. A deductive thematic analysis was conducted, drawing on an existing framework, which groups the factors influencing programme sustainability into four categories: innovation, leadership, process and context. PARTICIPANTS: 23 staff in two children's hospitals and two children's wards across four UK hospitals, comprising of nurses and doctors, administration or housekeeping staff, ward managers and matrons, and allied professionals. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Understanding factors contributing to the sustaining and spread of a quality improvement intervention. RESULTS: Perceptions of the benefits, purpose and fit of the huddle, team commitment, sharing learning, adaptation of the method and senior leadership were identified as facilitators. High staff turnover, large multiple specialty medical staff teams, lack of senior leadership and dislike of change were identified as barriers/challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Sustaining and spreading quality improvement interventions in a complex clinical setting requires understanding of the interplay between the actual innovation and existing leadership, process and contextual factors. These must be considered at the planning stage of an innovation to maximise the potential for sustainability and spread to other settings.

Where to make a difference: research and the social determinants in pediatrics and child health in the COVID-19 era.

IMPACT: Raises the importance of Social Determinants of Health in pediatrics. Considers the impact of Social Determinants of Health on COVID-19. Offers opportunities for research in the future.

International survey of COVID-19 management strategies.

BACKGROUND: While individual countries have gained considerable knowledge and experience in coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) management, an international, comparative perspective is lacking, particularly regarding the measures taken by different countries to tackle the pandemic. This paper elicits the views of health system staff, tapping into their personal expertise on how the pandemic was initially handled. METHODS: From May to July 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional, online, purpose-designed survey comprising 70 items. Email lists of contacts provided by the International Society for Quality in Health Care, the Italian Network for Safety in Health Care and the Australian Institute of Health Innovation were used to access healthcare professionals and managers across the world. We snowballed the survey to individuals and groups connected to these organizations. Key outcome measures were attitudes and information about institutional approaches taken; media communication; how acute hospitals were re-organized; primary health organization; personal protective equipment; and staffing and training. RESULTS: A total of 1131 survey participants from 97 countries across the World Health Organization (WHO) regions responded to the survey. Responses were from all six WHO regions; 57.9% were female and the majority had 10 or more years of experience in healthcare; almost half (46.5%) were physicians; and all other major clinical professional groups participated. As the pandemic progressed, most countries established an emergency task force, developed communication channels to citizens, organized health services to cope and put in place appropriate measures (e.g. pathways for COVID-19 patients, and testing, screening and tracing procedures). Some countries did this better than others. We found several significant differences between the WHO regions in how they are tackling the pandemic. For instance, while overall most respondents (71.4%) believed that there was an effective plan prior to the outbreak, this was only the case for 31.9% of respondents from the Pan American Health Organization compared with 90.7% of respondents from the South-East Asia Region (SEARO). Issues with swab testing (e.g. delay in communicating the swab outcome) were less frequently reported by respondents from SEARO and the Western Pacific Region compared with other regions. CONCLUSION: The world has progressed in its knowledge and sophistication in tackling the pandemic after early and often substantial obstacles were encountered. Most WHO regions have or are in the process of responding well, although some countries have not yet instituted widespread measures known to support mitigation, for example, effective swab testing and social control measures.

The care and keeping of clinicians in quality improvement.

OBJECTIVE: Although frontline clinicians are crucial in implementing and spreading innovations, their engagement in quality improvement remains suboptimal. Our goal was to identify facilitators and barriers to the development and engagement of clinicians in quality improvement. DESIGN: A 25-item questionnaire informed by theoretical frameworks was developed, tested and disseminated by email. SETTINGS: Members and fellows of the International Society for Quality in Healthcare. PARTICIPANTS: 1010 eligible participants (380 fellows and 647 members). INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-efficacy and effectiveness in conducting and leading quality improvement activities. RESULTS: We received 212 responses from 50 countries, a response rate of 21%. Dedicated time for quality improvement, mentorship and coaching and a professional quality improvement network were significantly related to higher self-efficacy. Factors enhancing effectiveness were dedicated time for quality improvement, multidisciplinary improvement teams, professional development in quality improvement, ability to select areas for improvement and organizational values and culture. Inadequate time, mentorship, organizational support and access to professional development resources were key barriers. Personal strengths contributing to effectiveness were the ability to identify problems that need to be fixed, reflecting on and learning from experiences and facilitating sharing of ideas. Key quality improvement implementation challenges were adopting new payment models, demonstrating the business case for quality and safety and building a culture of accountability and transparency. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight areas that organizations and professional development programs should focus on to promote clinician development and engagement in quality improvement. Barriers related to training, time, mentorship, organizational support and implementation must be concurrently addressed to augment the effectiveness of other approaches.