Call for Action to Target Interhospital Variation in Cardiovascular Mortality, Readmissions, and Length-of-Stay: Results of a National Population Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Excessive interhospital variation threatens healthcare quality. Data on variation in patient outcomes across the whole cardiovascular spectrum are lacking. We aimed to examine interhospital variability for 28 cardiovascular All Patient Refined-Diagnosis-related Groups (APR-DRGs). METHODS: We studied 103,299 cardiovascular admissions in 99 (98%) Belgian acute-care hospitals between 2012 and 2018. Using generalized linear mixed models, we estimated hospital-specific and APR-DRG-specific risk-standardized rates for in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmissions, and length-of-stay above the APR-DRG-specific 90th percentile. Interhospital variation was assessed based on estimated variance components and time trends between the 2012-2014 and 2016-2018 periods were examined. RESULTS: There was strong evidence of interhospital variation, with statistically significant variation across the 3 outcomes for 5 APR-DRGs after accounting for patient and hospital factors: percutaneous cardiovascular procedures with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, hypertension, angina pectoris, and arrhythmia. Medical diagnoses, with in particular hypertension, heart failure, angina pectoris, and cardiac arrest, showed strongest variability, with hypertension displaying the largest median odds ratio for mortality (2.51). Overall, hospitals performing at the upper-quartile level should achieve improvements to the median level, and an annual 633 deaths, 322 readmissions, and 1578 extended hospital stays could potentially be avoided. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of interhospital variation highlights important outcome differences that are not explained by known patient or hospital characteristics. Targeting variation is therefore a promising strategy to improve cardiovascular care. Considering their treatment in multidisciplinary teams, policy makers, and managers should prioritize heart failure, hypertension, cardiac arrest, and angina pectoris improvements by targeting guideline implementation outside the cardiology department.

From guidelines to clinical practice in care for ischaemic stroke patients: A systematic review and expert opinion.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Guidelines help physicians to provide optimal care for stroke patients, but implementation is challenging due to the quantity of recommendations. Therefore a practical overview related to applicability of recommendations can be of assistance. METHODS: A systematic review was performed on ischaemic stroke guidelines published in scientific journals, covering the whole acute care process for patients with ischaemic stroke. After data extraction, experts rated the recommendations on dimensions of applicability, that is, actionability, feasibility and validity, on a 9-point Likert scale. Agreement was defined as a score of ≥8 by ≥80% of the experts. RESULTS: Eighteen articles were identified and 48 recommendations were ultimately extracted. Papers were included only if they described the whole acute care process for patients with ischaemic stroke. Data extraction and analysis revealed variation in terms of both content and comprehensiveness of this description. Experts reached agreement on 34 of 48 (70.8%) recommendations in the dimension actionability, for 16 (33.3%) in feasibility and for 15 (31.3%) in validity. Agreement on all three dimensions was reached for seven (14.6%) recommendations: use of a stroke unit, exclusion of intracerebral haemorrhage as differential diagnosis, administration of intravenous thrombolysis, performance of electrocardiography/cardiac evaluation, non-invasive vascular examination, deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis and administration of statins if needed. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Substantial variation in agreement was revealed on the three dimensions of the applicability of recommendations. This overview can guide stroke physicians in improving the care process and removing barriers where implementation may be hampered by validity and feasibility.

Quality indicators for ambulatory colectomy: literature search and expert consensus.

BACKGROUND: Care for patients undergoing elective colectomy has become increasingly standardized using Enhanced Recovery Programs (ERP). ERP, encorporating minimally invasive surgery (MIS), decreased postoperative morbidity and length of stay (LOS). However, disruptive changes are needed to safely introduce colectomy in an ambulatory or same-day discharge (SDD) setting. Few research groups showed the feasibility of ambulatory colectomy. So far, no minimum standards for the quality of care of this procedure have been defined. This study aims to identify quality indicators (QIs) that assess the quality of care for ambulatory colectomy. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify recommendations for ambulatory colectomy. Based on that search, a set of QIs was identified and categorized into seven domains: preparation of the patient (pre-admission), anesthesia, surgery, in-hospital monitoring, home monitoring, feasibility, and clinical outcomes. This list was presented to a panel of international experts (surgeons and anesthesiologists) in a 1 round Delphi to assess the relevance of the proposed indicators. RESULTS: Based on the literature search (2010-2021), 3841 results were screened on title and abstract for relevant information. Nine papers were withheld to identify the first set of QIs (n = 155). After excluding duplicates and outdated QIs, this longlist was narrowed down to 88 indicators. Afterward, consensus was reached in a 1 round Delphi on a final list of 32 QIs, aiming to be a comprehensive set to evaluate the quality of ambulatory colectomy care. CONCLUSION: We propose a list of 32 QI to guide and evaluate the implementation of ambulatory colectomy.

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.

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).

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 impact of emotional support on healthcare workers and students coping with COVID-19, and other SARS-CoV pandemics - a mixed-methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Pandemics such as COVID-19 pose threats to the physical safety of healthcare workers and students. They can have traumatic experiences affecting their personal and professional life. Increasing rates of burnout, substance abuse, depression, and suicide among healthcare workers have already been identified, thus making mental health and psychological wellbeing of the healthcare workers a major issue. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize the characteristics of emotional support programs and interventions targeted to healthcare workers and students since the onset of COVID-19 and other SARS-CoV pandemics and to describe the effectiveness and experiences of these programs. METHOD: This was a mixed method systematic review. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and the review was registered on PROSPERO [CRD42021262837]. Searches were conducted using Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases. The COVIDENCE systematic review management system was used for data selection and extraction by two independent reviewers. The JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) critical appraisal tools were used to assess the quality of selected studies by two additional reviewers. Finally, data extraction and narrative analysis were conducted. RESULTS: The search retrieved 3161 results including 1061 duplicates. After screening, a total of 19 articles were included in this review. Participants in studies were nurses, physicians, other hospital staff, and undergraduate medical students mostly working on the front-line with COVID-19 patients. Publications included RCTs (n = 4), quasi-experimental studies (n = 2), cross-sectional studies (n = 6), qualitative interview studies (n = 3), and systematic reviews (n = 4). Most (63.4%) of the interventions used online or digital solutions. Interventions mostly showed good effectiveness (support-seeking, positive emotions, reduction of distress symptoms etc.) and acceptance and were experienced as helpful, but there were some conflicting results. CONCLUSION: Healthcare organizations have developed support strategies focusing on providing emotional support for these healthcare workers and students, but it is difficult to conclude whether one program offers distinct benefit compared to the others. More research is needed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of emotional support interventions for health workers.

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.

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 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.