Do European hospitals have quality and safety governance systems and structures in place?

Internal systems for quality and safety were assessed in 89 hospitals in six European states, by external teams using standardised criteria and procedures, as part of the Methods of Assessing Response to Quality Improvement Strategies (MARQuIS) project. The assessments were made primarily to identify the current use of quality management systems in the sample hospitals, and also to demonstrate a potential tool for comparable assessment of hospitals in general. The large majority of the hospitals had a formal, documented infrastructure to manage quality and safety, but a significant minority had no designated mission, programme or coordination. In two-thirds of hospitals, the governing body was active in defining policy and programmes for improvement, and received reports on quality, safety and patient satisfaction at least once a year. The brief on-site assessments identified systematic variations, within and between countries, in structures and processes of governance and to document the uptake of best practice. Unacceptable variations in practice could be reduced, to the benefit of consumers and providers, by developing and publishing basic organisational standards relevant to all European states. The simple assessment criteria designed for this project could be developed into a practical tool for self-assessment, peer review or benchmarking of hospitals across national borders. This assessment, combined with explicit, relevant and achievable standards, could provide a vehicle to promote the voluntary uptake of best practice and consistency in quality and safety among hospitals in Europe

Involvement of patients or their representatives in quality management functions in EU hospitals:implementation and impact on patient-centred care strategies

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the involvement of patients or their representatives in quality management (QM) functions and to assess associations between levels of involvement and the implementation of patient-centred care strategies. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, multilevel STUDY DESIGN: that surveyed quality managers and department heads and data from an organizational audit. SETTING: Randomly selected hospitals (n = 74) from seven European countries (The Czech Republic, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Turkey). PARTICIPANTS: Hospital quality managers (n = 74) and heads of clinical departments (n = 262) in charge of four patient pathways (acute myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture and deliveries) participated in the data collection between May 2011 and February 2012. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Four items reflecting essential patient-centred care strategies based on an on-site hospital visit: (1) formal survey seeking views of patients and carers, (2) written policies on patients' rights, (3) patient information literature including guidelines and (4) fact sheets for post-discharge care. The main predictors were patient involvement in QM at the (i) hospital level and (ii) pathway level. RESULTS: Current levels of involving patients and their representatives in QM functions in European hospitals are low at hospital level (mean score 1.6 on a scale of 0 to 5, SD 0.7), but even lower at departmental level (mean 0.6, SD 0.7). We did not detect associations between levels of involving patients and their representatives in QM functions and the implementation of patient-centred care strategies; however, the smallest hospitals were more likely to have implemented patient-centred care strategies. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence that involving patients and their representatives in QM leads to establishing or implementing strategies and procedures that facilitate patient-centred care; however, lack of evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of no effect

Is having quality as an item on the executive board agenda associated with the implementation of quality management systems in European hospitals: a quantitative analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether there is a relationship between having quality as an item on the board's agenda, perceived external pressure (PEP) and the implementation of quality management in European hospitals. DESIGN: A quantitative, mixed method, cross-sectional study in seven European countries in 2011 surveying CEOs and quality managers and data from onsite audits. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and fifty-five CEOs and 155 quality managers. SETTING: One hundred and fifty-five randomly selected acute care hospitals in seven European countries (Czech Republic, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Turkey). Main outcome measure(s) Three constructs reflecting quality management based on questionnaire and audit data: (i) Quality Management System Index, (ii) Quality Management Compliance Index and (iii) Clinical Quality Implementation Index. The main predictor was whether quality performance was on the executive board's agenda. RESULTS: Discussing quality performance at executive board meetings more often was associated with a higher quality management system score (regression coefficient b = 2.53; SE = 1.16; P = 0.030). We found a trend in the associations of discussing quality performance with quality compliance and clinical quality implementation. PEP did not modify these relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Having quality as an item on the executive board's agenda allows them to review and discuss quality performance more often in order to improve their hospital's quality management. Generally, and as this study found, having quality on the executive board's agenda matters

Involvement of patients or their representatives in quality management functions in EU hospitals : Implementation and impact on patient-centred care strategies

The study, "Deepening our Understanding of Quality Improvement in Europe (DUQuE)" has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no 241822. Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no 241822.Objective: The objective of this study was to describe the involvement of patients or their representatives in quality management (QM) functions and to assess associations between levels of involvement and the implementation of patient-centred care strategies. Design: A cross-sectional, multilevel study design that surveyed quality managers and department heads and data from an organizational audit. Setting: Randomly selected hospitals (n = 74) from seven European countries (The Czech Republic, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Turkey). Participants: Hospital qualitymanagers (n = 74) and heads of clinical departments (n = 262) in charge of four patient pathways (acute myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture and deliveries) participated in the data collection between May 2011 and February 2012. Main Outcome Measures: Four items reflecting essential patient-centred care strategies based on an on-site hospital visit: (1) formal survey seeking views of patients and carers, (2) written policies on patients' rights, (3) patient information literature including guidelines and (4) fact sheets for post-discharge care. The main predictors were patient involvement in QM at the (i) hospital level and (ii) pathway level. Results: Current levels of involving patients and their representatives in QM functions in European hospitals are low at hospital level (mean score 1.6 on a scale of 0 to 5, SD 0.7), but even lower at departmental level (mean 0.6, SD 0.7). We did not detect associations between levels of involving patients and their representatives in QM functions and the implementation of patient-centred care strategies; however, the smallest hospitals were more likely to have implemented patient-centred care strategies. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence that involving patients and their representatives in QM leads to establishing or implementing strategies and procedures that facilitate patient-centred care; however, lack of evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of no effect

Development and validation of an index to assess hospital quality management systems

The study, "Deepening our Understanding of Quality Improvement in Europe (DUQuE)" has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 241822. Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 241822.Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and validate an index to assess the implementation of quality management systems (QMSs) in European countries. Design: Questionnaire development was facilitated through expert opinion, literature review and earlier empirical research. A cross-sectional online survey utilizing the questionnaire was undertaken between May 2011 and February 2012. We used psychometric methods to explore the factor structure, reliability and validity of the instrument. Setting and participants. As part of the Deepening our Understanding of Quality improvement in Europe (DUQuE) project, we invited a random sample of 188 hospitals in 7 countries. The quality managers of these hospitals were the main respondents. Main Outcome Measure. The extent of implementation of QMSs. Results: Factor analysis yielded nine scales, which were combined to build the Quality Management Systems Index. Cronbach's reliability coefficients were satisfactory (ranging from 0.72 to 0.82) for eight scales and low for one scale (0.48). Corrected item-total correlations provided adequate evidence of factor homogeneity. Inter-scale correlations showed that every factor was related, but also distinct, and added to the index. Construct validity testing showed that the index was related to recent measures of quality. Participating hospitals attained a mean value of 19.7 (standard deviation of 4.7) on the index that theoretically ranged from 0 to 27. Conclusion: Assessing QMSs across Europe has the potential to help policy-makers and other stakeholders to compare hospitals and focus on the most important areas for improvement

Implementation of patient safety strategies in European hospitals.

CONTEXT: This study is part of the Methods of Assessing Response to Quality Improvement Strategies (MARQuIS) research project on cross-border care, investigating quality improvement strategies in healthcare systems across the European Union (EU). AIM: To explore to what extent a sample of acute care European hospitals have implemented patient safety strategies and mechanisms and whether the implementation is related to the type of hospital. METHODS: Data were collected on patient safety structures and mechanisms in 389 acute care hospitals in eight EU countries using a web-based questionnaire. Subsequently, an on-site audit was carried out by independent surveyors in 89 of these hospitals to assess patient safety outputs. This paper presents univariate and bivariate statistics on the implementation and explores the associations between implementation of patient safety strategies and hospital type using the chi(2) test and Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Structures and plans for safety (including responsibilities regarding patient safety management) are well developed in most of the hospitals that participated in this study. The study found greater variation regarding the implementation of mechanisms or activities to promote patient safety, such as electronic drug prescription systems, guidelines for prevention of wrong patient, wrong site and wrong surgical procedure, and adverse events reporting systems. In the sample of hospitals that underwent audit, a considerable proportion do not comply with basic patient safety strategies--for example, using bracelets for adult patient identification and correct labelling of medication

Implementation of patient safety strategies in European hospitals

This study is part of the Methods of Assessing Response to Quality Improvement Strategies (MARQuIS) research project on cross-border care, investigating quality improvement strategies in healthcare systems across the European Union (EU). To explore to what extent a sample of acute care European hospitals have implemented patient safety strategies and mechanisms and whether the implementation is related to the type of hospital. Data were collected on patient safety structures and mechanisms in 389 acute care hospitals in eight EU countries using a web-based questionnaire. Subsequently, an on-site audit was carried out by independent surveyors in 89 of these hospitals to assess patient safety outputs. This paper presents univariate and bivariate statistics on the implementation and explores the associations between implementation of patient safety strategies and hospital type using the χ 2 test and Fisher exact test. Structures and plans for safety (including responsibilities regarding patient safety management) are well developed in most of the hospitals that participated in this study. The study found greater variation regarding the implementation of mechanisms or activities to promote patient safety, such as electronic drug prescription systems, guidelines for prevention of wrong patient, wrong site and wrong surgical procedure, and adverse events reporting systems. In the sample of hospitals that underwent audit, a considerable proportion do not comply with basic patient safety strategies-for example, using bracelets for adult patient identification and correct labelling of medication

Occurrence of adverse events in the activity of hospital wards in the opinions of doctors and nursing management staff

Introduction. An adverse event is an incident induced while providing health care services or resulting from it, not related to the natural course of a given disease or health condition, which causes or is likely to cause negative consequences for the patient, including their death, a threat to life, the necessity of hospitalisation or its prolongation, permanent or considerable health detriment; or is a foetal disease, congenital defect or the result of foetal damage. Objective. The aim of this analysis is to explore the problem of the occurrence of adverse events from the perspective of doctors and ward nurses who manage wards. Materials and method. The research on the occurrence of adverse events among doctors and nurses (the management staff) was conducted with the use of a postal survey. Results. It was ascertained that 86.5% of the medical personnel had taken part in an adverse event, of which 20.2% took part in an occurrence associated with pharmacotherapy, 16.2% – in an event related to diagnostics and diagnosis, or an infection – 15.7%. 14.2% of respondents were involved in an occurrence linked to a medical device malfunction, and 14.1% – in an adverse event related to an operation. Conclusions. The adverse events most often identified in the nursing professional group are occurrences associated with pharmacotherapy, and in the doctors’ professional group – occurrences related to diagnostics and diagnosis. The research established that the most frequent reason for not informing patients about the occurrence of an adverse event is fear of their filing a complaint. Medical management staff show high acceptance of an adverse event reporting system as a tool for improving patient safety