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

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

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

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

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

Assessing the appropriateness of the management of otitis media in Australia: A population-based sample survey.

AIM: Acute otitis media (AOM) is the most common infectious disease for which antibiotics are prescribed; its management is costly and has the potential to increase the antimicrobial resistance of this infection. This study measured the levels of adherence to the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of AOM and otitis media with effusion (OME) management in Australian children. METHODS: We searched for national and international CPGs relating to AOM and OME in children and created 37 indicators for assessment. We reviewed medical records for adherence to these indicators in 120 locations, across one inpatient and three ambulatory health-care settings. Our review sample was obtained from three Australian states that contain 60% of the nation's children. RESULTS: We reviewed the records of 1063 children with one or more assessments of CPG adherence for otitis media. Of 22 indicators with sufficient data, estimated adherence ranged from 7.4 to 99.1%. Overuse of treatment, particularly overprescribing of antibiotics, was more common than underuse. A frequent lack of adherence with recommended care was observed for children aged between 1 and 2 years with AOM. Adherence varied by health-care setting, with emergency departments and inpatient settings more adherent to CPGs than general practices. CONCLUSIONS: Our assessment of a number of indicators in the common settings in which otitis media is treated found that guideline adherence varied widely between individual indicators. Internationally agreed standards for diagnosis and treatment, coupled with clinician education on the existence and content of CPGs and clinical decision support, are needed to improve the management of children presenting with AOM and OME

Leading Quality and Safety on the Frontline – A Case Study of Department Leaders in Nursing Homes

Purpose: The role of healthcare leaders is becoming increasingly complex, and carries great responsibility for patients, employees, and the quality of service delivery. This study explored the barriers and enablers that department leaders in nursing homes encounter when managing the dual responsibilities in Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) and Quality and Patient Safety (QPS). Methodology: Case study design with data collected through semi structured interviews with 16 department leaders in five Norwegian municipalities. We analyzed the data using qualitative content analysis. Results: Data analysis resulted in four themes explaining what department leaders in nursing homes experience as barriers and enablers when handling the dual responsibility of HSE and QPS: Temporal capacity: The importance of having enough time to create a health-promoting work environment that ensures patient safety. Relational capacity: Relationships have an impact on work process and outcomes. Professional competence: Competence affects patient safety and leadership strategies. Organizational structure: Organizational frameworks influence how the dual responsibilities are handled. Conclusion: Evidence from this study showed that external contextual factors (eg, legislations and finances) and internal factors (eg, relationships and expectations) are experienced as barriers and enablers when department leaders are enacting the dual responsibility of HSE and QPS. Of these, relationships were found to be the most significant contributor

Academic Health Science Centres as Vehicles for Knowledge Mobilisation in Australia? A Qualitative Study

Background Despite increasing investments in academic health science centres (AHSCs) in Australia and an expectation that they will serve as vehicles for knowledge translation and exchange, there is limited empirical evidence on whether and how they deliver impact. The aim of this study was to examine and compare the early development of four Australian AHSCs to explore how they are enacting their impact-focused role. Methods A descriptive qualitative methodology was employed across four AHSCs located in diverse health system settings in urban and regional locations across Australia. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews with 15 academic, industry and executive board members of participating AHSCs. The analysis combined inductive and deductive elements, with inductive categories mapped to deductive themes corresponding to the study aims. Results AHSCs in Australia are in an emergent state of development and are following different pathways. Whilst varied approaches to support research translation are apparent, there is a dominant focus on structure and governance, as opposed to action-oriented roles and processes to deliver strategic goals. Balancing collaboration and competition between partners presents a challenge, as does identifying appropriate ways to evaluate impact. Conclusion The early stage of development of AHSCs in Australia presents an important opportunity for formative learning and evaluation to optimise their enactment of knowledge mobilisation processes for impact

Mobilising knowledge in (and about) Academic Health Science Centres : boundary spanning, inter-organisational governance and systems thinking

Academic Health Science Centres (AHSCs), also termed Research Translation Centres (RTCs) in Australia, are organisations that aim to promote the integration of research, health professional education, and health service delivery to improve translation and innovation in Australia’s health system. In 2020, we published a study on how people, processes and systems were being organised within Australian AHSCs to enable knowledge to be mobilised for impact