Initial development of a self-assessment approach for coproduction value creation by an international community of practice.

BACKGROUND: Coproduction offers a new way of conceptualizing healthcare as a service that is co-created by people (health professionals and people seeking health services) rather than a product that is generated by providers or health systems and delivered to patients. This offers new possibilities for those introducing and testing changes, and it enables additional ways of creating value. Fjeldstad and colleagues describe the architecture of several kinds of value creating systems: (i) Chain; (ii) Shop; (iii) Network and (iv) Access. An international Value Creating Business Model Community of practice (VCBM CoP) was formed by the International Coproduction of Health Network and explored these types of systems and developed a self-assessment guide for health systems to use to assess value. METHODS: An international community of practice comprising leaders, clinicians, patients and finance specialists representing 12 health systems from four countries (USA, UK, Israel and Sweden) met monthly for 1 year and used a semi-structured process to iteratively refine and adapt Fjeldstad's model for use in healthcare and develop a draft self-assessment guide. The process concluded with initial focus group user experience sessions with six health systems. RESULTS: The community of practice successfully completed a 1-year journey of discovery, development and learning, resulting in two products: (1) a full-version self-assessment guide (detailed) and (2) an abbreviated 'short-form' of the guide. Initial focus-group results suggest that there is initial perceived feasibility, acceptability and utility of the guides and that further development and research is reasonable to pursue. Results suggest significant variation and context specificity in the use of the guide, simple and complex knowledge transfer applications in use, and the need for the development of simple and technology supported versions for use in the future. CONCLUSION: The VCBM CoP has successfully completed a 1-year collaborative learning cycle, resulting in the development of a self-assessment guide that is now ready for additional investigation using formal research methods. The CO-VALUE study has been designed to build on the work of the CoP and includes qualitative and quantitative assessment phases and a concept mapping study.

COproduction VALUE creation in healthcare service (CO-VALUE): an international multicentre protocol to describe the application of a model of value creation for use in systems of coproduced healthcare services and to evaluate the initial feasibility, utility and acceptability of associated system-level value creation assessment approaches.

INTRODUCTION: Coproduction introduces a fundamental shift in how healthcare service is conceptualised. The mechanistic idea of healthcare being a 'product' generated by the healthcare system and delivered to patients is replaced by that of a service co-created by the healthcare system and the users of healthcare services. Fjeldstad et al offer an approach for conceptualising value creation in complex service contexts that we believe is applicable to coproduction of healthcare service. We have adapted Fjeldstad's value creation model based on a detailed case study of a renal haemodialysis service in Jonkoping, Sweden, which demonstrates coproduction characteristics and key elements of Fjeldstad's model. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We propose a five-part coproduction value creation model for healthcare service: (1) value chain, characterised by a standardised set of processes that serve a commonly occurring need; (2) value shop, which offers a customised response for unique cases; (3) a facilitated value network, which involves groups of individuals struggling with similar challenges; (4) interconnection between shop, chain and network elements and (5) leadership. We will seek to articulate and assess the value creation model through the work of a community of practice comprised of a diverse international workgroup with representation from executive, financial and clinical leaders as well as other key stakeholders from multiple health systems. We then will conduct pilot studies of a qualitative self-assessment process in participating health systems, and ultimately develop and test quantitative measures for assessing coproduction value creation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Health Institutional Review Board (D-HH IRB) as a minimal risk research study. Findings and scholarship will be disseminated broadly through continuous engagement with health system stakeholders, national and international academic presentations and publications and an internet-based electronic platform for publicly accessible study information.

Networked health care: Rethinking value creation in learning health care systems.

Creating better value in health care service today is very challenging. The social pressure to do so is real for every health care system and its leadership. Real benefit has been achieved in manufacturing sector work by the use of "value-chain" thinking, which assumes that the work is a series of linked processes necessary to make a product. For those activities in health care systems that are similar, this model may be very helpful. Attempts to "install" the value chain widely in health care systems have, however, been frustrating. As a result, well-meaning leaders seeking better value have resorted to programs of cost reduction, rather than service redesign. Professionals have not been very happy or willing participants. The work of health care service invites an expanded model of value creation, one that better matches the work. This paper proposes a networked architecture that can mobilize and integrate the resources of health care professionals, interested patients, family, and other community members in the delivery and improvement of health care systems. It also suggests how this value-creation architecture might contribute to research and the development of new knowledge. Two cases illustrate the proposed architecture and its implications for system design and practice, technology development, and roles and responsibilities of all actors involved in health care systems. We believe that this model better fits the need of making and improving health care services. This expanded understanding of how value is created invites attention by senior leaders, by those attempting to facilitate the improvement of current systems, by patients and clinicians involved in the daily work of health care service coproduction, by those charged with the preparation and formation of future professionals, by those who measure and conduct research in health care services, and by those leading policy, payment, and reimbursement systems.

Residency education, preventive medicine, and population health care improvement: the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Leadership Preventive Medicine approach.

In 2003, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center (DHMC) inaugurated its Leadership Preventive Medicine residency (DHLPMR), which combines two years of leadership preventive medicine (LPM) training with another DHMC residency. The aim of DHLPMR is to attract and develop physicians who seek to become capable of leading change and improvement of the systems where people and health care meet. The capabilities learned by residents are (1) leadership -- including design and redesign -- of small systems in health care, (2) measurement of illness burden in individuals and populations, (3) measurement of the outcomes of health service interventions, (4) leadership of change for improvement of quality, value, and safety of health care of individuals and populations, and (5) reflection on personal professional practice enabling personal and professional development. The DHLPMR program includes completion of an MPH degree at The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice (formerly the Center for Evaluative Clinical Sciences) and a practicum during which the resident leads change to improve health care for a defined population of patients. Residents also complete a longitudinal public health experience in a governmental public health agency. A coach in the resident's home clinical department helps the resident develop his or her practicum proposal, which must then be approved by a practicum review board (PRB). Twelve residents have graduated as of July 2007. Residents have combined anesthesia, family medicine, internal medicine, infectious disease, pain medicine, pathology, psychiatry, pulmonary and critical care medicine, surgery, gastroenterology, geriatric psychiatry, obstetrics-gynecology, and pediatrics with preventive medicine.

Development of the SQUIRE Publication Guidelines: evolution of the SQUIRE project.

These guidelines address the development and testing of interventions to improve the quality and safety of health care.

Clinical microsystems, Part 3. Transformation of two hospitals using microsystem, mesosystem, and macrosystem strategies.

BACKGROUND: Two hospitals-a large, urban academic medical center and a rural, community hospital-have each chosen a similar microsystem-based approach to improvement, customizing the engagement of the micro-, meso-, and macrosystems and the improvement targets on the basis of an understanding of the local context. CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER (CCHMC): Since 2004, strategic changes have been developed to support microsystems and their leaders through (1) ongoing improvement training for all macro-, meso-, and microsystem leaders; (2) financial support for physicians who are serving as co-leaders of clinical microsystems; (3) increased emphasis on aligning academic pursuits with improvement work at the clinical front lines; (4) microsystem leaders' continuous access to unit-level data through the organization's intranet; and (5) encouragement of unit leaders to share outcomes data with families. COOLEY DICKINSON HOSPITAL (CDH): CDH has moved from near closure to a survival-turnaround focus, significant engagement in quality and finally, a complete reframing of a quality focus in 2004. Since then, it has deployed the clinical microsystems approach in one pilot care unit (West 2, a medical surgery unit), broadened it to two, then six more, and is now spreading it organizationwide. In "2+2 Charters," interdisciplinary teams address two strategic goals set by senior leadership and two goals set by frontline microsystem leaders and staff DISCUSSION: CCHMC and CDH have had a clear focus on developing alignment, capability, and accountability to fuse together the work at all levels of the hospital, unifying the macrosystem with the mesosystem and microsystem. Their improvement experience suggests tips and actions at all levels of the organization that could be adapted with specific context knowledge by others.

Clinical microsystems, Part 4. Building innovative population-specific mesosystems.

BACKGROUND: In 2005, the Geisinger Health System (Danville, Pennsylvania) developed ProvenCare, first applied to coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), as an innovative provider-driven quality improvement program to promote reliable delivery of evidence-based best practices. A new mesosystem is created for each ProvenCare model, integrating the care delivery process between contributing microsystems and defining new mesosystem leadership. The approach has been expanded to many patient populations, including percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). A NEW PCI MESOSYSTEM: In 2007 clinical microsystem thinking was applied to PCI: understanding the current processes and patterns, assembling the frontline professionals to redesign the processes, and using a beta-test phase to measure the changes and adjust accordingly, until the best process was established. A new mesosystem team was created to ensure that the right care is delivered at the tight time. REFINING IMPLEMENTATION: In the course of developing the CABG initiative, Geisinger established role definitions to keep teams on track; a comprehensive plan from design through execution and follow-up; and guiding principles established for the teams engaged in designing, developing, and implementing ProvenCare programs. PRELIMINARY EXPERIENCE: For the 40 measurable process elements in the PCI mesosystem pathway, as of month seven (July 2008) of the beta-test phase, 55% of the patients received 100% of the identified process elements. CONCLUSION: Geisinger Health System has joined different microsystems to form an innovative mesosystem capable of producing reliable, evidence-based care for patient subpopulations. This approach to embedding evidence-based care into routine care delivery can be adapted by others.

Clinical microsystems, part 2. Learning from micro practices about providing patients the care they want and need.

BACKGROUND: Usual medical care in the United States is frequently not a satisfying experience for either patients or primary care physicians. Whether primary care can be saved and its quality improved is a subject of national concern. An increasing number of physicians are using microsystem principles to radically redesign their practices. Small, independent practices-micro practices-are often able to incorporate into a few people the frontline attributes of successful microsystems such as clear leadership, patient focus, process improvement, performance patterns, and information technology. PATIENT FOCUS, PROCESS IMPROVEMENT, AND PERFORMANCE PATTERNS: An exemplary microsystem will (1) have as its primary purpose a focus on the patient-a commitment to meet all patient needs; (2) make fundamental to its work the study, measurement, and improvement ofcare-a commitment to process improvement; and (3) routinely measure its patterns of performance, "feed back" the data, and make changes based on the data. LESSONS FROM MICRO PRACTICES: The literature and experience with micro practices suggest that they (1) constitute an important group in which to demonstrate the value of microsystem thinking; (2) can become very effective clinical microsystems; (3) can reduce their overhead costs to half that of larger freestanding practices, enabling them to spend more time working with their patients; (4) can develop new tools and approaches without going through layers of clearance; and (5) need not reinvent the wheel. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported data demonstrate how micro practices are using patient focus, process improvement, performance patterns, and information technology to improve performance. Pati ents should be able to report that they receive "exactly the care they want and need exactly when and how they want and need it."

Clinical microsystems, part 1. The building blocks of health systems.

BACKGROUND: Wherever, however, and whenever health care is delivered-no matter the setting or population of patients-the body of knowledge on clinical microsystems can guide and support innovation and peak performance. Many health care leaders and staff at all levels of their organizations in many countries have adapted microsystem knowledge to their local settings. CLINICAL MICROSYSTEMS: A PANORAMIC VIEW: HOW DO CLINICAL MICROSYSTEMS FIT TOGETHER? As the patient's journey of care seeking and care delivery takes place over time, he or she will move into and out of an assortment of clinical microsystems, such as a family practitioner's office, an emergency department, and an intensive care unit. This assortment of clinical microsystems-combined with the patient's own actions to improve or maintain health--can be viewed as the patient's unique health system. This patient-centric view of a health system is the foundation of second-generation development for clinical microsystems. LESSONS FROM THE FIELD: These lessons, which are not comprehensive, can be organized under the familiar commands that are used to start a race: On Your Mark, Get Set, Go! ... with a fourth category added-Reflect: Reviewing the Race. These insights are intended as guidance to organizations ready to strategically transform themselves. CONCLUSION: Beginning to master and make use of microsystem principles and methods to attain macrosystem peak performance can help us knit together care in a fragmented health system, eschew archipelago building in favor of nation-building strategies, achieve safe and efficient care with reliable handoffs, and provide the best possible care and attain the best possible health outcomes.

Publicly reporting comprehensive quality and cost data: a health care system's transparency initiative.

BACKGROUND: Transparency in health care, including the public reporting of health care results, is an expanding and unstoppable phenomenon. Health care systems have an opportunity to: (1) be proactive and accountable for the care they provide, (2) help patients learn more about their condition as a supplement to understanding the performance measures, and (3) use public reporting to foster process of care and outcome improvement initiatives. An overview is provided of the first 22 months of a transparency initiative at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center (DHMC). LAUNCHING THE TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE: An interdisciplinary operations group works with the various clinical programs--both providers and patients--to identify what quality and cost measures are most desired by patients and what measures are the focus of the clinical program's internal measurement and reporting processes. The measures are presented on the DHMC Web site, with access to additional resources, such as clinical decision aids. DISCUSSION: A variety of factors are important to the transparency initiative--senior leaders' perceptions, risk management issues, resources required for the design and maintenance of the initiative, and developing both methodological protocols and technical systems.

Quality improvement learning collaboratives.

PURPOSE: To identify and synthesize characteristics of successful data-driven Quality improvement learning collaboratives (QILCs) in the United States and Europe, and to extend previously discussed and newly identified guidelines for developing successful data-driven QILCs across health care settings and systems. METHODS: An interview guide of open-ended questions was developed and posed to 18 key informants of various disciplines involved in the development and implementation of successful QILCs across 10 organizations in 3 countries. Aspects of successful QILCs were analyzed to identify patterns emerging from structure-process interactions between complex health care systems. RESULTS: Shared patterns of successful collaboratives included cultivating trust, attendance to the human dimension, nonlinear development, attendance to organizational culture, integrated philosophy of quality improvement, and a focus on process and outcome measurement to drive change. This study extends the knowledge base through synthesis of findings from previous quality improvement research with the findings from this study to develop guidelines for establishing and developing successful QILCs. CONCLUSIONS: The core characteristics identified in this study were critical to successful collaboration when these approaches were used in the contexts identified. The intrinsic complexity of QILCs requires that effectiveness studies employ qualitative as well as quantitative methodologies.

Knowledge for improvement: who will lead the learning?

If we wish to improve the results of a system, what is needed to help health professionals learn about the redesign of that system? To create learning experiences that will attract good health professionals, a special blend of practical insight and critical thinking is required. To enjoy good standing in the academy, these leaders must be able to design, conduct, and disseminate knowledge-building activities subject to peer review. This is the story of the development of the United States Veteran's Health Administration Quality Scholars Program from those who designed and formed it to prepare health professional teachers and academics.

A curriculum for training quality scholars to improve the health and health care of veterans and the community at large.

In 1998, the Veterans Health Administration invested in the creation of the Veterans Administration National Quality Scholars Fellowship Program (VAQS) to train physicians in new ways to improve the quality of health care. We describe the curriculum for this program and the lessons learned from our experience to date. The VAQS Fellowship program has developed a core improvement curriculum to train postresidency physicians in the scholarship, research, and teaching of the improvement of health care. The curriculum covers seven domains of knowledge related to improvement: health care as a process; variation and measurement; customer/beneficiary knowledge; leading, following, and making changes in health care; collaboration; social context and accountability; and developing new, locally useful knowledge. We combine specific knowledge about the improvement of health care with the use of adult learning strategies, interactive video, and development of learner competencies. Our program provides insights for medical education to better prepare physicians to participate in and lead the improvement of health care.

The interdependent roles of patients, families and professionals in cystic fibrosis: a system for the coproduction of healthcare and its improvement.

A quality healthcare system is coproduced by patients, families and healthcare professionals working interdependently to cocreate and codeliver care. Cystic fibrosis (CF) patients and families rely on healthcare professionals to provide the best possible care and timely, accurate information. They know that the care at home and in clinical settings needs to be seamless, using shared information and decisions. A parent's journey of better care begins with her son's diagnosis and moves to her involvement to improve the systems and processes of care for others. She reflects on this work and identifies five elements that contributed to the coproduction of improved care: (1) mental and emotional readiness to engage; (2) curiosity and the search for insight; (3) reframe challenges into opportunities for improvement; (4) listen and learn from everyone, bringing home what is relevant; and (5) personal participation. Joined with the reflections of an improvement scientist, they note that chronic care relies on informed, activated patients and prepared, proactive healthcare professionals working together and that it is more than 'patient-centric'. They propose a model for the coimprovement of systems of care.

Which elements of improvement collaboratives are most effective? A cluster-randomized trial.

AIMS: Improvement collaboratives consisting of various components are used throughout health care to improve quality, but no study has identified which components work best. This study tested the effectiveness of different components in addiction treatment services, hypothesizing that a combination of all components would be most effective. DESIGN: An unblinded cluster-randomized trial assigned clinics to one of four groups: interest circle calls (group teleconferences), clinic-level coaching, learning sessions (large face-to-face meetings) and a combination of all three. Interest circle calls functioned as a minimal intervention comparison group. SETTING: Out-patient addiction treatment clinics in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and one clinics in five states. MEASUREMENTS: Clinic data managers submitted data on three primary outcomes: waiting-time (mean days between first contact and first treatment), retention (percentage of patients retained from first to fourth treatment session) and annual number of new patients. State and group costs were collected for a cost-effectiveness analysis. FINDINGS: Waiting-time declined significantly for three groups: coaching (an average of 4.6 days/clinic, P = 0.001), learning sessions (3.5 days/clinic, P = 0.012) and the combination (4.7 days/clinic, P = 0.001). The coaching and combination groups increased significantly the number of new patients (19.5%, P = 0.028; 8.9%, P = 0.029; respectively). Interest circle calls showed no significant effect on outcomes. None of the groups improved retention significantly. The estimated cost per clinic was $2878 for coaching versus $7930 for the combination. Coaching and the combination of collaborative components were about equally effective in achieving study aims, but coaching was substantially more cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: When trying to improve the effectiveness of addiction treatment services, clinic-level coaching appears to help improve waiting-time and number of new patients while other components of improvement collaboratives (interest circles calls and learning sessions) do not seem to add further value.

Building experiential learning about quality improvement into a medical school curriculum: the Dartmouth experience.

Educators have struggled with the best ways to teach the knowledge and skills of quality improvement to medical students. Dartmouth Medical School has a decade of experience incorporating this material into its curriculum. Working with faculty coaches, twenty-two second-year students have completed nine clinical improvement projects over the past four years. Students' input has improved processes in our clinics for the collection of samples and scheduling of appointments. Instituting these changes is complex and requires a careful evaluation that describes and understands the educational context in order to establish successful and enduring curricular reform.

Institutional attributes associated with innovation and improvement: results of a multisite study.

BACKGROUND: To date, no studies have explored why some teaching hospitals and health systems appear to offer a more fertile environment for innovation and improvement in the learning environment. As a consequence, little is known about the role of organizational attributes and culture in fostering innovation and improvements in settings where residents learn and participate in care, though these have been studied extensively in the general literature on organizations. AIMS: The goals of our study entailed (1) gathering ground-level observations on processes and common attributes; (2) disseminating this information for adoption and adaptation; and (3) exploring whether the current accreditation model may present barriers to institution- and program-level innovation. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study of 4 institutions, successful in innovation and improvement in their learning environment, and sought to replicate the findings with a second group of 5 institutions. RESULTS: THREE THEMES EMERGED FROM THE INTERVIEWS AND SITE VISITS OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE ALPHA PHASE: (1) a structure and culture that promote integration and inclusion; (2) a recognition of the value of resident education to the institution; and (3) a learning organization rooted in the extensive use of data and ongoing change, improvement, and innovation. CONCLUSIONS: Some of the concepts identified in our small sample of "innovative" institutions could be relatively easily adopted or adapted by others that seek to enhance innovation and improvement in the learning environment. In contrast, the structural factors that characterized 3 of the 4 alpha participants, particularly the organization and compensation of faculty, may not be generalizable to many other institutions.