A framework for learning about improvement: embedded implementation and evaluation design to optimize learning.

Improving health care involves many actors, often working in complex adaptive systems. Interventions tend to be multi-factorial, implementation activities diverse, and contexts dynamic and complicated. This makes improvement initiatives challenging to describe and evaluate as matching evaluation and program designs can be difficult, requiring collaboration, trust and transparency. Collaboration is required to address important epidemiological principles of bias and confounding. If this does not take place, results may lack credibility because the association between interventions implemented and outcomes achieved is obscure and attribution uncertain. Moreover, lack of clarity about what was implemented, how it was implemented, and the context in which it was implemented often lead to disappointment or outright failure of spread and scale-up efforts. The input of skilled evaluators into the design and conduct of improvement initiatives can be helpful in mitigating these potential problems. While evaluation must be rigorous, if it is too rigid necessary adaptation and learning may be compromised. This article provides a framework and guidance on how improvers and evaluators can work together to design, implement and learn about improvement interventions more effectively.

Salzburg Global Seminar Session 565-'Better Health Care: how do we learn about improvement?'

A fundamental question for the field of healthcare improvement is the extent to which the results achieved can be attributed to the changes that were implemented and whether or not these changes are generalizable. Answering these questions is particularly challenging because the healthcare context is complex, and the interventions themselves tend to be complex and multi-dimensional. The Salzburg Global Seminar Session 565-'Better Health Care: How do we learn about improvement?' was convened to address questions of attribution, generalizability and rigor, and to think through how to approach these concerns in the field of quality improvement. The Salzburg Global Seminar Session 565 brought together 61 leaders in improvement from 22 countries, including researchers, evaluators and improvers. The primary conclusion that resulted from the session was the need for evaluation to be embedded as an integral part of the improvement. We have invited participants of the seminar to contribute to writing this supplement, which consists of eight articles reflecting insights and learning from the Salzburg Global Seminar. This editorial serves as an introduction to the supplement. The supplement explains results and insights from Salzburg Global Seminar Session 565.

Managing hundreds of improvement teams.

Recognizing the notable scale of USAID Applying Science to Strengthen and Improve Systems (ASSIST) Project activities and sizable number of improvement teams, which in some cases is close to 1,000 improvement teams managed in one country at a point in time, we sought to answer the questions: How do we manage hundreds of improvement teams in one country alone? How do we manage more than 4,000 improvement teams globally? The leaders of our improvement programs manage such efforts as though they are second-nature, without pointing to the specific skills and strategies needed to manage thousands of teams. This paper was developed to capture the lessons, considerations, and insights shared in discussions with leaders on the USAID ASSIST Project, including country Chiefs of Party and Regional Directors. More specifically, this paper seeks to describe what is involved in scaling up and managing large numbers of improvement teams. Through focus group discussions and individual interviews, participants discussed the key skills, strategies, and lessons needed to successfully manage large numbers of teams on the USAID ASSIST Project. We concluded that the six key components in managing large numbers of teams are 1) leadership; 2) management structures and capacities; 3) clear and open communication; 4) shared learning, collaboration, and support; 5) ownership, engagement, and empowerment; and 6) partnerships. We further analyzed these six components as being interrelated to one another based on the relationship between culture, strategy, and technique in implementing quality improvement activities.