Do large-scale hospital- and system-wide interventions improve patient outcomes: a systematic review

BackgroundWhile health care services are beginning to implement system-wide patient safety interventions, evidence on the efficacy of these interventions is sparse. We know that uptake can be variable, but we do not know the factors that affect uptake or how the interventions establish change and, in particular, whether they influence patient outcomes. We conducted a systematic review to identify how organisational and cultural factors mediate or are mediated by hospital-wide interventions, and to assess the effects of those factors on patient outcomes.MethodsA systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Database searches were conducted using MEDLINE from 1946, CINAHL from 1991, EMBASE from 1947, Web of Science from 1934, PsycINFO from 1967, and Global Health from 1910 to September 2012. The Lancet, JAMA, BMJ, BMJ Quality and Safety, The New England Journal of Medicine and Implementation Science were also hand searched for relevant studies published over the last 5 years. Eligible studies were required to focus on organisational determinants of hospital- and system-wide interventions, and to provide patient outcome data before and after implementation of the intervention. Empirical, peer-reviewed studies reporting randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, observational, and controlled before and after studies were included in the review.ResultsSix studies met the inclusion criteria. Improved outcomes were observed for studies where outcomes were measured at least two years after the intervention. Associations between organisational factors, intervention success and patient outcomes were undetermined: organisational culture and patient outcomes were rarely measured together, and measures for culture and outcome were not standardised.ConclusionsCommon findings show the difficulty of introducing large-scale interventions, and that effective leadership and clinical champions, adequate financial and educational resources, and dedicated promotional activities appear to be common factors in successful system-wide change

Deepening our Understanding of Quality in Australia (DUQuA): a study protocol for a nationwide, multilevel analysis of relationships between hospital quality management systems and patient factors.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the growing body of research on quality and safety in healthcare, there is little evidence of the association between the way hospitals are organised for quality and patient factors, limiting our understanding of how to effect large-scale change. The 'Deepening our Understanding of Quality in Australia' (DUQuA) study aims to measure and examine relationships between (1) organisation and department-level quality management systems (QMS), clinician leadership and culture, and (2) clinical treatment processes, clinical outcomes and patient-reported perceptions of care within Australian hospitals. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The DUQuA project is a national, multilevel, cross-sectional study with data collection at organisation (hospital), department, professional and patient levels. Sample size calculations indicate a minimum of 43 hospitals are required to adequately power the study. To allow for rejection and attrition, 70 hospitals across all Australian jurisdictions that meet the inclusion criteria will be invited to participate. Participants will consist of hospital quality management professionals; clinicians; and patients with stroke, acute myocardial infarction and hip fracture. Organisation and department-level QMS, clinician leadership and culture, patient perceptions of safety, clinical treatment processes, and patient outcomes will be assessed using validated, evidence-based or consensus-based measurement tools. Data analysis will consist of simple correlations, linear and logistic regression and multilevel modelling. Multilevel modelling methods will enable identification of the amount of variation in outcomes attributed to the hospital and department levels, and the factors contributing to this variation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained. Results will be disseminated to individual hospitals in de-identified national and international benchmarking reports with data-driven recommendations. This ground-breaking national study has the potential to influence decision-making on the implementation of quality and safety systems and processes in Australian and international hospitals

Developing Methods to Support Collaborative Learning and Co-creation of Resilient Healthcare—Tips for Success and Lessons Learned From a Norwegian Hospital Cancer Care Study

Background There is a growing attention on the role of patients and stakeholders in resilience, but there is lack of knowledge and methods on how to support collaborative learning between stakeholders and co-creation of resilient healthcare. The aim of this article was to demonstrate how the methodological process of a consensus process for exploring aspects of next of kin involvement in hospital cancer care can be replicated as an effort to promote resilient healthcare through co-creation with multiple stakeholders in hospitals. Methods The study applied a modified nominal group technique process developed by synthesizing research findings across 4 phases of a research project with a mixed-methods approach. The process culminated in a 1-day meeting with 20 stakeholder participants (5 next of kin representatives, 10 oncology nurses, and 5 physicians) from 2 Norwegian university hospitals. Results The consensus method established reflexive spaces with collective sharing of experiences between the 2 hospitals and between the next of kin and healthcare professionals. The method promoted collaborative learning processes including identification and reflection upon new ideas for involvement, and reduction of the gap between healthcare professionals’ and next of kin experiences and expectations for involvement. Next of kin were considered as important resources for resilient performance, if involved with a proactive approach. The consensus process identified both successful and unsuccessful collaborative practices and resulted in a co-designed guide for healthcare professionals to support next of kin involvement in hospital cancer care. Conclusions This study expands the body of knowledge on methods development that is relevant for collaborative learning and co-creation of resilient healthcare. This study demonstrated that the consensus methods process can be used for creating reflexive spaces to support collaborative learning and co-creation of resilience in cancer care. Future research within the field of collaborative learning should explore interventions that include a larger number of stakeholders.publishedVersio

The application of resilience assessment grid in healthcare:A scoping review

Background The Resilience Assessment Grid (RAG) has attracted increasing interest in recent healthcare discourse as an instrument to understand and measure the resilience performance of socio-technical systems. Despite its growing popularity in healthcare, its applicability and utility remain unclear. This scoping review aims to understand the practical application of RAG method and its outcomes in healthcare. Method We followed the Arksey and O'Malley, and the Levac and colleagues' framework for scoping reviews and the PRISMA-ScR Checklist. We conducted searches of three electronic databases [Medline, Embase and Web of Science] in May 2021. Supplementary searches included Google Scholar, web and citation searches, and hand searches of the nine seminal edited books on Resilience Engineering and Resilient Health Care. All English language, empirical studies of RAG application in the healthcare setting were included. Open Science Framework [Registration-DOI. 10.17605/OSF.IO/GTCZ3]. Results Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Diversities were found across study designs and methodologies. Qualitative designs and literature reviews were most frequently used to develop the RAG and applied it in practice. Eight of the studies had qualitative designs, three studies had mixed-methods designs and one study had a quantitative design. All studies reported that the RAG was very helpful for understanding how frontline healthcare professionals manage the complexity of everyday work. While the studies gained insights from applying the RAG to analyze organizational resilience and identify areas for improvement, it was unclear how suggestions were implemented and how they contributed to quality improvement. Conclusion The RAG is a promising tool to manage some of the current and future challenges of the healthcare system. To realise the potential benefits of the RAG, it is important that we move beyond the development phase of the RAG tool and use it to guide implementation and management of quality initiatives.</p

The resilient potential behaviours in an Internal Medicine Department:Application of resilience assessment grid

Background The healthcare system is frequently subject to unpredictable conditions such as organisational changes and pandemics. In order to perform as required under these conditions (i.e. exhibiting resilient behaviour), it is necessary to know the current position of the organisation with respect to the four resilient potentials i.e. respond, monitor, learn and anticipate. The study aimed to understand and assess resilient performance of an Internal Medicine Department in a public hospital in Denmark using the resilience assessment grid (RAG). Methods A modified Delphi method was used to develop the context specific RAG, using interviews to generate items, two rounds of expert panel reviews and pilot testing the developed RAG questionnaire. The four sets of structured RAG questions were tested and revised until satisfactory face and content validity for application was achieved. The final version of the RAG (28-item Likert scale) questionnaire was sent electronically to 87 healthcare professionals (clinicians and managers) in January 2021 and 2022. The data was statistically analysed and illustrated in radar charts to assist in interpreting the resilience profiles. Results While the resilience profiles in 2021 and 2022 were similar, the scores in 2022 were slightly lower for some of the sub-indicators. The results indicate areas for improvement, especially related to the Internal Medicine Department’s potential to respond and learn. The results from the RAG were presented to the chief clinical consultants and managers to identify initiatives for quality improvement and for planning a new workflow at the Internal Medicine Department. Conclusion The RAG is a managerial tool to assess the potential resilient performance of the organisation in respect to the four resilience potentials, i.e., responding, monitoring, learning, and anticipating. It can be used to construct the resilience profile of the system over time to manage organisational changes.</p

Today’s referral is tomorrow’s repeat patient:referrals to and between medical outpatient clinics in a hospital

Background: Unnecessary referrals in Danish hospitals may be contributing to inefficient use of health services already stretched and under pressure and may lead to delayed treatment for patients. Despite a growing awareness in the literature and in practice of issues related to referrals, there has been relatively little research on referrals between specialists in hospital outpatient clinics and how it can be improved. This study aimed to describe the referral patterns to and within the Medical Department at the University Hospital of Southern Denmark. The Medical Department consists of the following medical specialist outpatient clinics; nephrology, pulmonology, endocrinology, cardiovascular, wound outpatient clinic, and a day hospital. Methods: Two specialist physicians assessed all referrals to the medical specialist outpatient clinics over one month (from 01 September 2019 to 30 September 2019) using data drawn from the Danish electronic patient record system (Cosmic). Data on referral pattern, and patient age and sex, were statistically analysed to identify and characterise patterns of referral. Results: Four hundred seventy-one (100%) referrals were included in the study. 49.5% (233) of the referrals were from the hospital and 50.5% (238) from general practitioners (GPs). Of the 233 referrals from the hospitals, 31% (72) were from the Medical Department. Conclusion: The high rate of referrals (31%) from own Medical Department or outpatient clinics may reflect an inefficient internal referral process within the department. Improved collaboration between specialists could have the potential to improve health outcomes, timely access to care and more appropriate healthcare resource utilisation.</p

The application of the Resilience Assessment Grid in outpatient clinics:A validation study

The Resilience Assessment Grid (RAG) has gained increasing traction in healthcare discourse for its effectiveness in understanding and assessing the potential resilient performance of healthcare organisations. RAG is intended to be tailored for the specific organisation. However, developing a context specific RAG questionnaire can be time-consuming, limiting its widespread implementation. The current study aimed to investigate whether an existing Danish RAG questionnaire for outpatient clinics could be successfully content validated and applied in another outpatient clinic context. A modified Delphi method was used to content validate the Danish RAG questionnaire in the Australian outpatient clinic setting, using interviews and expert panel reviews. The 29-item English version of the RAG questionnaire was administered in 2023 to nine managers and five healthcare professionals responding on a five-point Likert scale, who work across 34 hospital outpatient clinics at Macquarie University (MQ) Health Clinics. The questionnaire was also employed during managerial and departmental meetings in a collaborative learning format. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data, which was then presented using radar charts to facilitate the interpretation of the resilient profiles of MQ Health Clinics. The translation and validation of the Danish RAG questionnaire was successful. The English language RAG questionnaire was perceived as useful by managers to assess their clinics’ resilient strengths and weaknesses and identify areas for improvement within their clinic. While the RAG methodology highlights the importance of context-specificity, this study's findings suggest that the content validated RAG questionnaire has the potential for application in other outpatient settings with minimal adaptation.</p

Variability in clinicians' understanding and reported methods of identifying high-risk surgical patients: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: High-risk patients presenting for surgery require complex decision-making and perioperative management. However, given there is no gold standard for identifying high-risk patients, doing so may be challenging for clinicians in practice. Before a gold standard can be established, the state of current practice must be determined. This study aimed to understand how working clinicians define and identify high-risk surgical patients. METHODS: Clinicians involved in the care of high-risk surgical patients at a public hospital in regional Australia were interviewed as part of an ongoing study evaluating a new shared decision-making process for high-risk patients. The new process, Patient-Centred Advanced Care Planning (PC-ACP) engages patients, families, and clinicians from all relevant specialties in shared decision-making in line with the patient's goals and values. The semi-structured interviews were conducted before the implementation of the new process and were coded using a modified form of the 'constant comparative method' to reveal key themes. Themes concerning patient risk, clinician's understanding of high risk, and methods for identifying high-risk surgical patients were extricated for close examination. RESULTS: Thirteen staff involved in high-risk surgery at the hospital at which PC-ACP was to be implemented were interviewed. Analysis revealed six sub-themes within the major theme of factors related to patient risk: (1) increase in high-risk patients, (2) recognising frailty, (3) risk-benefit balance, (4) suitability and readiness for surgery, (5) avoiding negative outcomes, and (6) methods in use for identifying high-risk patients. There was considerable variability in clinicians' methods of identifying high-risk patients and regarding their definition of high risk. This variability occurred even among clinicians within the same disciplines and specialties. CONCLUSIONS: Although clinicians were confident in their own ability to identify high-risk patients, they acknowledged limitations in recognising frail, high-risk patients and predicting and articulating possible outcomes when consenting these patients. Importantly, little consistency in clinicians' reported methods for identifying high-risk patients was found. Consensus regarding the definition of high-risk surgical patients is necessary to ensure rigorous decision-making

Improving outcomes from high-risk surgery: a multimethod evaluation of a patient-centred advanced care planning intervention

Introduction: Patients who are frail, have multiple comorbidities or have a terminal illness often have poor outcomes from surgery. However, sole specialists may recommend surgery in these patients without consultation with other treating clinicians or allowing for patient goals. The Patient-Centred Advanced Care Planning (PC-ACP) model of care provides a framework in which a multidisciplinary advanced care plan is devised to incorporate high-risk patients' values and goals. Decision-making is performed collaboratively by patients, their family, surgeons, anaesthetists, intensivists and surgical case managers. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of this new model of care, and to determine potential benefits to patients and clinicians. Methods and analysis: After being assessed for frailty, patients will complete a patient-clinician information engagement survey pretreatment and at 6 months follow-up. Patients (and/or family members) will be interviewed about their experience of care pretreatment and at 3 and 6 months follow-ups. Clinicians will complete a survey on workplace attitudes and engagement both preimplementation and postimplementation of PC-ACP and be interviewed, following each survey, on the implementation of PC-ACP. We will use process mapping to map the patient journey through the surgical care pathway to determine areas of improvement and to identify variations in patient experience. Ethics and dissemination: This study has received ethical approval from Townsville Hospital and Health Service HREC (HREC/16/QTHS/100). Results will be communicated to the participating hospital, presented at conferences and submitted for publication in a peerreviewed MEDLINE-indexed journal

FRAM and LEAN as tools for describing and improving the referral process between outpatient clinics in a Danish Hospital:Complementary or conflicting?

Although LEAN and Resilience Engineering (RE) are distinct process improvement approaches, recent research evidence suggests that these two approaches have some similarities and can be used jointly for process optimisation. This study aimed to understand and improve the referral process between internal medicine outpatient clinics at the University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Hospital Sønderjylland, using RE and LEAN principles. The referral process was mapped from the RE perspective using Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) and from the LEAN perspective using Value Stream Mapping (VSM). The FRAM and VSM outputs were also compared to identify learning opportunities and to understand how these two methods complement each other in practice. The study drew on sources of data from interviews, observations, a VSM workshop and registry data on referrals from the hospital's electronic patient journal system. The FRAM analysis showed that organisational structure, time constraints, interruptions and lack of a standard for referral may explain the inefficient referral process. The VSM showed that long processing times may explain bottlenecks in the referral flow: while the processing time of a referral took between 6 and 17 min in the outpatient clinics, the actual time was longer, taking between 22 h 42 min and 5 days 14 h 25 min. By using FRAM and VSM methodologies synergistically, we identified potential quality improvement initiatives to improve the referral process. Our findings may guide healthcare or other industries in how to use FRAM and VSM in practice for process optimisation.</p