How and under what circumstances do quality improvement collaboratives lead to better outcomes? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement collaboratives are widely used to improve health care in both high-income and low and middle-income settings. Teams from multiple health facilities share learning on a given topic and apply a structured cycle of change testing. Previous systematic reviews reported positive effects on target outcomes, but the role of context and mechanism of change is underexplored. This realist-inspired systematic review aims to analyse contextual factors influencing intended outcomes and to identify how quality improvement collaboratives may result in improved adherence to evidence-based practices. METHODS: We built an initial conceptual framework to drive our enquiry, focusing on three context domains: health facility setting; project-specific factors; wider organisational and external factors; and two further domains pertaining to mechanisms: intra-organisational and inter-organisational changes. We systematically searched five databases and grey literature for publications relating to quality improvement collaboratives in a healthcare setting and containing data on context or mechanisms. We analysed and reported findings thematically and refined the programme theory. RESULTS: We screened 962 abstracts of which 88 met the inclusion criteria, and we retained 32 for analysis. Adequacy and appropriateness of external support, functionality of quality improvement teams, leadership characteristics and alignment with national systems and priorities may influence outcomes of quality improvement collaboratives, but the strength and quality of the evidence is weak. Participation in quality improvement collaborative activities may improve health professionals' knowledge, problem-solving skills and attitude; teamwork; shared leadership and habits for improvement. Interaction across quality improvement teams may generate normative pressure and opportunities for capacity building and peer recognition. CONCLUSION: Our review offers a novel programme theory to unpack the complexity of quality improvement collaboratives by exploring the relationship between context, mechanisms and outcomes. There remains a need for greater use of behaviour change and organisational psychology theory to improve design, adaptation and evaluation of the collaborative quality improvement approach and to test its effectiveness. Further research is needed to determine whether certain contextual factors related to capacity should be a precondition to the quality improvement collaborative approach and to test the emerging programme theory using rigorous research designs

When trust, confidence, and faith collide: refining a realist theory of how and why inter-organisational collaborations in healthcare work

Background Health systems are facing unprecedented socioeconomic pressures as well as the need to cope with the ongoing strain brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. In response, the reconfiguration of health systems to encourage greater collaboration and integration has been promoted with a variety of collaborative shapes and forms being encouraged and developed. Despite this continued interest, evidence for success of these various arrangements is lacking, with the links between collaboration and improved performance often remaining uncertain. To date, many examinations of collaborations have been undertaken, but use of realist methodology may shed additional light on how and why collaboration works, and whom it benefits. Methods This paper seeks to test initial context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) of interorganisational collaboration with the view to producing a refined realist theory. This phase of the realist synthesis used case study and evaluation literature; combined with supplementary systematic searches. These searches were screened for rigour and relevance, after which CMOCs were extracted from included literature and compared against existing ones for refinement, refutation, or affirmation. We also identified demi-regularities to better explain how these CMOCs were interlinked. Results Fifty-one papers were included, from which 338 CMOCs were identified, where many were analogous. This resulted in new mechanisms such as ‘risk threshold’ and refinement of many others, including trust, confidence, and faith, into more well-defined constructs. Refinement and addition of CMOCs enabled the creation of a ‘web of causality’ depicting how contextual factors form CMOC chains which generate outputs of collaborative behaviour. Core characteristics of collaborations, such as whether they were mandated or cross-sector, were explored for their proposed impact according to the theory. Conclusion The formulation of this refined realist theory allows for greater understanding of how and why collaborations work and can serve to inform both future work in this area and the implementation of these arrangements. Future work should delve deeper into collaborative subtypes and the underlying drivers of collaborative performance. Review registration This review is part of a larger realist synthesis, registered at PROSPERO with ID CRD42019149009

Tensions and paradoxes in electronic patient record research: a systematic literature review using the meta-narrative method

Background: The extensive and rapidly expanding research literature on electronic patient records (EPRs) presents challenges to systematic reviewers. This literature is heterogeneous and at times conflicting, not least because it covers multiple research traditions with different underlying philosophical assumptions and methodological approaches. Aim: To map, interpret and critique the range of concepts, theories, methods and empirical findings on EPRs, with a particular emphasis on the implementation and use of EPR systems. Method: Using the meta-narrative method of systematic review, and applying search strategies that took us beyond the Medline-indexed literature, we identified over 500 full-text sources. We used ‘conflicting’ findings to address higher-order questions about how the EPR and its implementation were differently conceptualised and studied by different communities of researchers. Main findings: Our final synthesis included 24 previous systematic reviews and 94 additional primary studies, most of the latter from outside the biomedical literature. A number of tensions were evident, particularly in relation to: [1] the EPR (‘container’ or ‘itinerary’); [2] the EPR user (‘information-processer’ or ‘member of socio-technical network’); [3] organizational context (‘the setting within which the EPR is implemented’ or ‘the EPR-in-use’); [4] clinical work (‘decision-making’ or ‘situated practice’); [5] the process of change (‘the logic of determinism’ or ‘the logic of opposition’); [6] implementation success (‘objectively defined’ or ‘socially negotiated’); and [7] complexity and scale (‘the bigger the better’ or ‘small is beautiful’). Findings suggest that integration of EPRs will always require human work to re-contextualize knowledge for different uses; that whilst secondary work (audit, research, billing) may be made more efficient by the EPR, primary clinical work may be made less efficient; that paper, far from being technologically obsolete, currently offers greater ecological flexibility than most forms of electronic record; and that smaller systems may sometimes be more efficient and effective than larger ones. Conclusions: The tensions and paradoxes revealed in this study extend and challenge previous reviews and suggest that the evidence base for some EPR programs is more limited than is often assumed. We offer this paper as a preliminary contribution to a much-needed debate on this evidence and its implications, and suggest avenues for new research

What You Need to Know about Bar-Code Medication Administration

Medication errors are the most common type of preventable error. Bar-code medication administration (BCMA) technology was designed to reduce medication administration errors. Poor system design, implementation and workarounds remain a cause of errors. This paper reviews the literature on BCMA, identifies a gap in the findings and identifies three evidence based practices that could be used to improve system implementation and reduce error. The literature review identified that Bar-code medication administration and system workarounds are well documented and affect patient safety. Based on the critical analysis of 10 studies, we identified gaps in the standardization of BCMA planning, implementation, and sustainability. The themes that emerged from the literature were poor BCMA design and implementation that resulted in workarounds.The three evidence based strategies proposed to address this gap are, evidence based standardization in planning and implementation, the identification and elimination of workarounds and hard wiring. An evidence based checklist evaluates compliance with standard procedures. The LEAN model of Jodoka is used to assure adaptation of the machine to human workflow. Direct observation provides valuable workflow assessment. An effective BCMA implementation involves careful system design, identification of workflow issues which cause workarounds, and adapting the machine to nursing needs

Knowledge integration in One Health policy formulation, implementation and evaluation

The One Health concept covers the interrelationship between human, animal and environmental health and requires multistakeholder collaboration across many cultural, disciplinary, institutional and sectoral boundaries. Yet, the implementation of the One Health approach appears hampered by shortcomings in the global framework for health governance. Knowledge integration approaches, at all stages of policy development, could help to address these shortcomings. The identification of key objectives, the resolving of trade-offs and the creation of a common vision and a common direction can be supported by multicriteria analyses. Evidence-based decision-making and transformation of observations into narratives detailing how situations emerge and might unfold in the future can be achieved by systems thinking. Finally, transdisciplinary approaches can be used both to improve the effectiveness of existing systems and to develop novel networks for collective action. To strengthen One Health governance, we propose that knowledge integration becomes a key feature of all stages in the development of related policies. We suggest several ways in which such integration could be promoted

Computerization of workflows, guidelines and care pathways: a review of implementation challenges for process-oriented health information systems

There is a need to integrate the various theoretical frameworks and formalisms for modeling clinical guidelines, workflows, and pathways, in order to move beyond providing support for individual clinical decisions and toward the provision of process-oriented, patient-centered, health information systems (HIS). In this review, we analyze the challenges in developing process-oriented HIS that formally model guidelines, workflows, and care pathways. A qualitative meta-synthesis was performed on studies published in English between 1995 and 2010 that addressed the modeling process and reported the exposition of a new methodology, model, system implementation, or system architecture. Thematic analysis, principal component analysis (PCA) and data visualisation techniques were used to identify and cluster the underlying implementation ‘challenge’ themes. One hundred and eight relevant studies were selected for review. Twenty-five underlying ‘challenge’ themes were identified. These were clustered into 10 distinct groups, from which a conceptual model of the implementation process was developed. We found that the development of systems supporting individual clinical decisions is evolving toward the implementation of adaptable care pathways on the semantic web, incorporating formal, clinical, and organizational ontologies, and the use of workflow management systems. These architectures now need to be implemented and evaluated on a wider scale within clinical settings

Mental Disorders and Medical Comorbidity

Presents findings on factors behind the prevalence of patients with both mental and medical conditions; mortality, quality of care, and cost burdens; and evidence-based treatment approaches, including self-management support. Outlines policy implications

Assessing Communities of Practice in health policy : A conceptual framework as a first step towards empirical research

Peer reviewe

Nurse Practitioner Competency Standards: Findings from Collaborative Australian and New Zealand Research

Background: The title, Nurse Practitioner, is protected in most jurisdictions in Australia and in New Zealand and the number of nurse practitioners is increasing in health services in both countries. Despite this expansion of the role there is scant national or international research to inform development of nurse practitioner competency standards. Objectives: The aim of the study was to research nurse practitioner practice to inform development of generic standards that could be applied for the education, authorisation and practice of nurse practitioners in both countries. Design: The research used a multi-methods approach to capture a range of data sources including research of policies and curricula, and interviews with clinicians. Data were collected from relevant sources in Australia and New Zealand Settings: The research was conducted in New Zealand and the five states and territories in Australia where, at the time of the research, the title of nurse practitioner was legally protected. Participants: The research was conducted with a purposeful sample of nurse practitioners from diverse clinical settings in both countries. Interview and material data were collected from a range of sources and data were analysed within and across these data modalities. Results: Findings included identification of three generic standards for nurse practitioner practice namely, Dynamic Practice, Professional Efficacy and Clinical Leadership. Each of these standards has a number of practice competencies, each of these competencies with their own performance indicators. Conclusions: Generic Standards for nurse practitioner practice will support a standardised approach and mutual recognition of nurse practitioner authorisation across the two countries. Additionally these research outcomes can more generally inform education providers, authorising bodies and clinicians on the standards of practice for the nurse practitioner whilst also contributing to the current international debate on nurse practitioner standards and scope of practice