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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Development of a Model Care Pathway for Myasthenia Gravis.

Myasthenia Gravis (MG) is a chronic, life-lasting condition that requires high coordination among different professionals and disciplines. The diagnosis of MG is often delayed and sometimes misdiagnosed. The goal of the care pathway (CP) is to add value to healthcare reducing unnecessary variations. The quality of the care received by patients affected with MG could benefit from the use of CP. We conducted a study aimed to define an inclusive, comprehensive, and multidisciplinary CP for the diagnosis, treatment, and care of MG. The development of the model CP, key interventions, and process indicators is based on the literature review and 85 international MG experts were involved in their evaluation, expressing a judgment of relevance through the Delphi study. 60 activities are included in the model CP and evaluated by the MG experts were valid and feasible. The 60 activities were then translated into 14 key interventions and 24 process indicators. We believe that the developed model CP will help for MG patients to have a timely diagnosis and high-quality, accessible, and cost-effective treatments and care. We also believe that the development of model CPs for other rare diseases is feasible and could aid in the integration of evidence-based knowledge into clinical practice.

Quality indicators in the treatment of geriatric hip fractures: literature review and expert consensus.

PURPOSE: Even though hip fracture care pathways have evolved, mortality rates have not improved during the last 20 years. This finding together with the increased frailty of hip fracture patients turned hip fractures into a major public health concern. The corresponding development of an indicator labyrinth for hip fractures and the ongoing practice variance in Europe call for a list of benchmarking indicators that allow for quality improvement initiatives for the rapid recovery of fragile hip fractures (RR-FHF). The purpose of this study was to identify quality indicators that assess the quality of in-hospital care for rapid recovery of fragile hip fracture (RR-FHF). METHODS: A literature search and guideline selection was conducted to identify recommendations for RR-FHF. Recommendations were categorized as potential structure, process, and outcome QIs and subdivided in-hospital care treatment topics. A list of structure and process recommendations that belongs to care treatment topics relevant for RR-FHF was used to facilitate extraction of recommendations during a 2-day consensus meeting with experts (n = 15) in hip fracture care across Europe. Participants were instructed to select 5 key recommendations relevant for RR-FHF for each part of the in-hospital care pathway: pre-, intra-, and postoperative care. RESULTS: In total, 37 potential QIs for RR-FHF were selected based on a methodology using the combination of high levels of evidence and expert opinion. The set consists of 14 process, 13 structure, and 10 outcome indicators that cover the whole perioperative process of fragile hip fracture care. CONCLUSION: We suggest the QIs for RR-FHF to be practice tested and adapted to allow for intra-hospital longitudinal follow-up of the quality of care and for inter-hospital and cross-country benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives.

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.