"Smoking in Children's Environment Test": a qualitative study of experiences of a new instrument applied in preventive work in child health care

Background Despite knowledge of the adverse health effects of passive smoking, children are still   being exposed. Children's nurses play an important role in tobacco preventive work   through dialogue with parents aimed at identifying how children can be protected from   environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure. The study describes the experiences of   Child Health Care (CHC) nurses when using the validated instrument SiCET (Smoking   in Children's Environment Test) in dialogue with parents. Method In an intervention in CHC centres in south-eastern Sweden nurses were invited to use   the SiCET. Eighteen nurses participated in focus group interviews. Transcripts were   reviewed and their contents were coded into categories by three investigators using   the method described for focus groups interviews. Results The SiCET was used in dialogue with parents in tobacco preventive work and resulted   in focused discussions on smoking and support for behavioural changes among parents.   The instrument had both strengths and limitations. The nurses experienced that the   SiCET facilitated dialogue with parents and gave a comprehensive view of the child's   ETS exposure. This gave nurses the possibility of taking on a supportive role by offering   parents long-term help in protecting their child from ETS exposure and in considering   smoking cessation. Conclusion Our findings indicate that the SiCET supports nurses in their dialogue with parents   on children's ETS exposure at CHC. There is a need for more clinical use and evaluation   of the SiCET to determine its usefulness in clinical practice under varying circumstances.funding agnencies|Swedish National Institute of Public Health||Futurum - The Academy for Healthcare, Jonkoping County Council|

Bridging the Silos: A Comparative Analysis of Implementation Science and Improvement Science

Background Implementation science and improvement science have similar goals of improving health care services for better patient and population outcomes, yet historically there has been limited exchange between the two fields. Implementation science was born out of the recognition that research findings and effective practices should be more systematically disseminated and applied in various settings to achieve improved health and welfare of populations. Improvement science has grown out of the wider quality improvement movement, but a fundamental difference between quality improvement and improvement science is that the former generates knowledge for local improvement, whereas the latter is aimed at producing generalizable scientific knowledge. Objectives The first objective of this paper is to characterise and contrast implementation science and improvement science. The second objective, building on the first, is to highlight aspects of improvement science that potentially could inform implementation science and vice versa. Methods We used a critical literature review approach. Search methods included systematic literature searches in PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO until October 2021; reviewing references in identified articles and books; and the authors' own cross-disciplinary knowledge of key literature. Findings The comparative analysis of the fields of implementation science and improvement science centred on six categories: (1) influences; (2) ontology, epistemology and methodology; (3) identified problem; (4) potential solutions; (5) analytical tools; and (6) knowledge production and use. The two fields have different origins and draw mostly on different sources of knowledge, but they have a shared goal of using scientific methods to understand and explain how health care services can be improved for their users. Both describe problems in terms of a gap or chasm between current and optimal care delivery and consider similar strategies to address the problems. Both apply a range of analytical tools to analyse problems and facilitate appropriate solutions. Conclusions Implementation science and improvement science have similar endpoints but different starting points and academic perspectives. To bridge the silos between the fields, increased collaboration between implementation and improvement scholars will help to clarify the differences and connections between the science and practice of improvement, to expand scientific application of quality improvement tools, to further address contextual influences on implementation and improvement efforts, and to share and use theory to support strategy development, delivery and evaluation

Evidence informed healthcare improvement : Design and evaluation

Healthcare is in constant change with fast development in knowledge, new technology and varying needs and expectations from patients, citizens, management, and politicians. There is a challenge in balancing the involved actors´ focus, needs, preferences, and resources for healthcare improvement. Improvement of healthcare is an ongoing activity, sometimes managed and controlled, often not. A key ingredient for success is competence where the need for competence varies with perspectives of the improving actors. Actors in healthcare improvement are professionals, patients, politicians, management, citizens, researchers, research foundations and others. In this report a review of frameworks in healthcare improvement are presented together with management myths and questions around needs for healthcare improvement competence and capabilities currently on the agenda. Most improvement initiatives of some size have substantial parts of IT and have had so for a considerable time. This rather long experience of more and less successful IT implementation and use is transparent and useful in all kinds of healthcare improvement. One important issue in this report is what has real impact is the actual understanding and use of innovations and artefacts by healthcare actors in a broad sense for healthcare improvement (e.g., new clinical evidence, clinical guidelines, process changes, information systems and more). The aim in this report is to review frameworks which can be useful in healthcare improvement as well as in the study of healthcare improvement. Conclusions concern what is found to be important to study and understand healthcare improvement, considering the presented frameworks. Improvement of healthcare is present in all the frameworks but in different ways and what is emphasized concerning scope and focus. Improving healthcare take place in the interaction of at least two parts, one of which is healthcare professionals, and another is the patient/next-of-kin. Professionals and patient populations interact in processes of social networks and structures. Actors and context are useful concepts for understanding action (use) and its social contexts. The actual use of innovations is best understood in terms of integration into clinical activities and processes – actors’ interaction, coordination and communication activities and processes. Theoretical implications are that there is a need for more research concerning meso and macro perspectives on methods for healthcare improvement, and the interplay of perspectives regarding the understanding of improvement in healthcare. Of course, a challenge is that the objects of improvement are complex adaptive systems of healthcare is not easily to catch in simple rules. They are genuinely difficult both to change and evaluate changes. Practical implications of the report support design and contents of education programs in improvement of healthcare, in better understanding usefulness, practice, use, and experience base. To help the understanding of the need and usefulness of integrating different perspectives for successful healthcare improvement, e.g., micro, meso, and macro perspectives, use of mixed methods and more.

BRIEF ARTICLE

Framework for assessing quality of care for inflammatory bowel disease in Swede

Rapport om utvärdering av IVO:s lärande tillsyn

Inspektionen för vård och omsorg (IVO) har i sin tillsynspolicy lagt fokus på att främja lärande för att stödja utvecklingen av god kvalitet och säkerhet i vård och omsorg. Under 2017 har IVO givit Jönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare vid Jönköping University i uppdrag att utvärdera tillämpning av lärande tillsyn. Syftet med denna studie var att belysa om, och om möjligt hur, IVO:s tillsyn kan stödja verksamhetsutveckling och förbättring i de tillsynade verksamheter. Det finns många teoribildningar kring lärande och kvalitetsutveckling. Denna rapport tar utgångspunkt i teorier om organisatoriskt lärande, samskapande och förbättringskunskap och belyser vad som kan bidra, och i så fall hur, till en ömsesidig tillit som leder till ett fördjupat lärande som grund för förbättring. Studien omfattar två tillsyner, där deltagarna bestod av personal från de berörda verksamheterna, samt IVO-inspektörer från de regionala IVO avdelningar. Det empiriska materialet samlades in genom intervjuer och en observation. En dokumentgenomgång av relevanta IVO dokument skapade underlag för utvecklandet av studiens intervjuguider. Intervjuerna bandades, transkriberades och analyserades med en metod inspirerad av tematisk analys, som utmynnade i fem teman: (I) Förberedelse inför tillsyn; (II) Genomförande i verksamheten; (III) Resultat i verksamheten; (IV) Förutsättningar för lärande; och (V) Önskemål för ökat lärande. Samtliga teman innehåller både förhållanden som stödjer (främjar) och som försvårar (hindrar) lärande: Förberedelsearbetet ansågs inte bidra till en ökad tillit som förutsättning för lärande. Det uttrycktes en önskan om mer samskapande i förberedelsearbetet redan innan tillsynstillfället Det framkom önskemål om att lärandet, som ett av målen med tillsynen, skulle lyftas tydligare i dialogen vid tillsynstillfället. Det uppfattades som svårt att peka på reella resultat i verksamheterna som direkt berodde på tillsynen, men det beskrevs ändå som viktigt att tillsynen fanns. Det fanns olika uppfattningar om hur IVO:s roll som tillsynsmyndighet påverkade lärandet. Ett större fokus på gemensam uppföljning skulle vara ett sätt att optimera lärandet både i verksamheterna och hos IVO:s inspektörer. Ett lärande skulle gynnas av en tydlig gemensam problembeskrivning, samt fortlöpande uppföljningar och delad kunskap, exempelvis genom goda exempel och dialogkonferenser. Generellt fanns en stor samstämmighet mellan IVO:s inspektörer och de verksamhetsföreträdare som intervjuats, men vissa skillnader framkom också. Rapporten avslutas med några avslutande reflektioner

Pedagogical approaches in quality improvement coaching in healthcare : a Swedish case study of how improvement coaches approach learning in a contemporary healthcare system

In this study we adopt a critical perspective and explore different coaching styles in quality improvement (QI) work in the provision of healthcare. Coaching has gained attention as an effective way to enhance QI in healthcare. This study investigates how coaching is realised in terms of learning: What kinds of learning ideals pervade QI coaching, and how is support for learning realised, given the prevailing conditions in a contemporary healthcare system? For the purpose of this case study, a group of coaches exchanged experiences about their pedagogic roles and the strategies that they employed, on four occasions, over a period of 4 months. The conversations were filmed and then analysed, using critical discourse analysis as an analytic framework. Three parallel styles of coaching were identified, which were symbolised by (1) a pointing, (2) a bypassing and (3) a guiding discourse. No persistent dominance of any one of the discourses was found, which suggests that there exists an ever-present tension between the pointing and guiding pedagogies of coaching activities. The findings indicate that QI coaching in healthcare is more complex than previous conceptualisations of coaching. Additionally, the findings present a new, ‘bypassing’ coaching style which the coaches themselves were not fully aware of