Hybrid practices as a means to implement quality improvement: A comparative qualitative study in a Dutch and Swedish hospital.

BACKGROUND: Managers and scholars commonly perceive resistance from professionals as hampering the implementation of quality improvement (QI) and refer to the incompatibility of clinical and managerial approaches to QI as a reason. Yet a growing body of research indicates that, in practice, these two approaches rather blend into hybrid practices that embody different types of QI-related knowledge and values. This opens up a new perspective on implementation challenges that moves attention away from resistance against managerial QI toward difficulties for clinicians to draw together different types of knowledge and values within their clinical work. So far, little is known about how managers can support clinicians to generate hybrid QI practices. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to deepen our understanding of how managers can support the generation of hybrid practices that help clinicians to integrate QI into their everyday work. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We draw on comparative qualitative research including 21 semistructured interviews, documentary analysis, and participant observation that we conducted in one Dutch and one Swedish hospital over a period of 8 months in 2011/2012. RESULTS: Hospital managers designed hybrid forums, tools, and professional roles in order to facilitate the integration of different QI practices, knowledge, and values. This integration generated new hybrid practices and an infrastructure for QI that has potential to support clinicians in their efforts to align different demands. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: New opportunities to implement QI emerge when we change the implementation problem from clinical resistance to the need of support for clinicians to develop hybrid QI practices. Hospital managers then have to intentionally organize for the generation of hybrid practices by designing, for example, hybrid forums, tools, and professional roles that integrate different knowledge and values in a nonhierarchical way.

Implementing an interprofessional model of self-management support across a community workforce: A mixed-methods evaluation study.

The importance of implementing self-management support (SMS) is now widely accepted, but questions remain as to how. In 2015, we facilitated the implementation of an interprofessional model of SMS (Bridges Self-Management) for people with complex multiple long-term conditions through community rehabilitation and social care services in one Southeast England locality. Over 90 professionals and support workers from this workforce received interprofessional training to integrate SMS into their care and rehabilitation interactions. This gave an opportunity to explore how SMS can be implemented in practice. We conducted a mixed-methods study with unequal weighting (qualitative emphasis), concurrent timing, and embedded design. Staff provided written feedback and case reflections, participated in group discussions, and completed a survey of self-management beliefs and attitudes. We recruited a convenience sample of 10 service users and conducted qualitative interviews and standardised questionnaires. Findings showed that staff appreciated and benefited from the interprofessional learning environment. Staff reported changes in their interactions with service users and colleagues and had gained knowledge and confidence to support individuals to self-manage. Data also highlighted the need to facilitate SMS practice at the level of service organisation. Service user data illustrated the impact of interactions with staff, and how SMS had increased service users' confidence and encouraged different skills to manage life with their conditions. This project has shown how multi-agency community teams can benefit from interprofessional training to enhance SMS for people living with long-term conditions, build a shared understanding of SMS, and integrate effective SMS strategies into everyday practices.

Experiences of recovery and posthospital care needs of working-age adults after physical trauma: a qualitative focus group study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore experiences of recovery after physical trauma and identify long-term needs for posthospital care. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: A qualitative study was conducted consisting of seven online focus groups among working-age adults who sustained their injury between 9 months and 5 years ago. Trauma patients discharged from a level 1 trauma centre in the Netherlands were divided into three groups based on the type of their physical trauma (monotrauma, polytrauma and traumatic brain injury). Group interviews were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Despite differences in type and severity of their injuries, participants all struggled with the impact that trauma had on various aspects of their lives. They experienced recovery as an unpredictable and inconstant process aimed at resuming a meaningful life. Work was often perceived as an important part of recovery, though the value attributed to work could change over time. Participants struggled to bring the difficulties they encountered in their daily lives and at work to the attention of healthcare professionals (HCPs). While posthospital care needs varied between and across groups, all people stressed the need for flexible access to person-centred, multidisciplinary care and support after hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals that people with a broad variety of injury experience recovery as a process towards resuming a meaningful life and report the need to expand trauma care to include comprehensive support to live well long term. Person-centred care might be helpful to enable HCPs to take people's individual long-term needs and life situations into account. Furthermore, providing timely access to coordinated, multidisciplinary care after discharge is advocated. Integrated care models that span a network of multidisciplinary support around the person may help align existing services and may facilitate easy and timely access to the most suitable support for injured people and their loved ones.

Building Bridges between healthcare professionals, patients and families: A coproduced and integrated approach to self-management support in stroke.

BACKGROUND: Programmes providing self-management support for patients and families are gaining attention and have shown promising outcomes with regards to reducing long-term unmet needs post stroke. However, notions of what good self-management support looks like can differ depending on professional opinion, individual preferences, skills and experiences of patients and their families as well as on how care and rehabilitation is organised in a particular healthcare setting. This resonates with the perspective of patient-centred care, according to which the meaning of good care is not universal, but rather jointly shaped between healthcare professionals and patients in everyday interactions. While self-management support is continuously co-produced in care and rehabilitation practices, most self-management programmes are typically provided as an 'add-on' to existing statutory care. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to deepen the understanding of how self-management support can be made an integral part of everyday care and rehabilitation using Bridges methodology. METHODS: The authors provide a self-reflective account on 'Bridges' an integrated approach to self-management support, which is used by healthcare professionals within acute and community stroke rehabilitation across the UK, and in some parts of New Zealand and Australia. RESULTS: Bridges is based on self-efficacy principles, but has a central aim of professionals sharing decision-making and expertise with patients and families in every healthcare interaction. Methodologically, the co-production of a Bridges support package with local healthcare professionals and patients is critical. The authors present the values articulated by the support package and how it engages professionals, patients and Bridges training facilitators in a continuous process of adjusting and re-adjusting situated self-management support practices. CONCLUSIONS: Our reflections reveal the need to consider development and implementation of self-management support as one and the same on-going process, if we are to facilitate successful engagement and interest from healthcare professionals as well as their patients and families.