Measuring Team Functioning During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Perspectives of Cancer Care Team Members

Samar Attieh,1 Kelley Kilpatrick,2 Denis Chênevert,3 Marie-Pascale Pomey,4– 6 Carmen G Loiselle7– 9 1Department of Experimental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada; 2Susan E. French Chair in Nursing Research and Innovative Practice, Ingram School of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada; 3Department of Human Resources Management, HEC Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada; 4Research Centre of the University of Montreal Hospital Centre, Montréal, QC, Canada; 5Centre d’excellence sur le partenariat avec les patients et le public, Montréal, QC, Canada; 6Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, School of Public Health, University of Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada; 7Ingram School of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montréal, Canada; 8Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montréal, Canada; 9Segal Cancer Center, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, CanadaCorrespondence: Samar Attieh, Department of Experimental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, 550 Sherbrooke Street West, West Towers, Suite 775, Montréal, QC, H3A 1B9, Canada, Email [email protected]: In a public health crisis such as COVID-19, cancer teams face significant challenges including acute work disruptions, rapid shifts in clinical practice, and burnout. Within this context, it is crucial to explore team functioning from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders.Objective: This quantitative pilot study aimed to 1) measure perceptions of multi-stakeholders on key indicators of team functioning (Team Effectiveness, TE, and Team Relational Coordination, TRC) during COVID-19 and its transition, and 2) document whether patient perceptions of TE/TRC are significantly associated with their cancer care experiences.Methods: A descriptive design with repeated measures was used. Through convenience sampling, participants were recruited from two outpatient cancer clinics at a large university-affiliated hospital, in Montréal, Qc, Canada. Sixty-six participants (ie, 13 healthcare professionals, 40 patients, 6 informal caregivers, and 7 volunteers) completed e-measures at T1 (years 2021– 2022) and n = 44 at T2 (year 2023).Results: At T1, participants reported high perceptions of Team Effectiveness (scale 1 to 6) M = 4.47; SD = 0.7 (Mdn = 4.54; IQR: 4.06– 5) and Relational Coordination (scale 1 to 5) M = 3.77; SD = 0.77 (Mdn = 3.81; IQR: 3.12– 4.38) with no significant differences in perceptions across the four groups. At T2, no significant changes in TE/TRC perceptions were found. At both time points, patient perceptions of TE/TRC were significantly correlated with positive cancer care experiences (Spearman rank correlation rs ranging from 0.69 and 0.83; p < 0.01).Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first study documenting perceptions of cancer team functioning amidst the pandemic as reported by multiple stakeholders. Significant relationships between patient perceptions of TE/TRC and their cancer care experiences underscore the importance of including patients’ views in team functioning processes. Future work should rely on larger sample sizes to further explore key elements of optimal team functioning.Keywords: team functioning, team effectiveness, team relational coordination, cancer care, patient satisfaction, patient experiences, COVID-19, pandemic, health crisi

Does accreditation stimulate change? A study of the impact of the accreditation process on Canadian healthcare organizations

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>One way to improve quality and safety in healthcare organizations (HCOs) is through accreditation. Accreditation is a rigorous external evaluation process that comprises self-assessment against a given set of standards, an on-site survey followed by a report with or without recommendations, and the award or refusal of accreditation status. This study evaluates how the accreditation process helps introduce organizational changes that enhance the quality and safety of care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used an embedded multiple case study design to explore organizational characteristics and identify changes linked to the accreditation process. We employed a theoretical framework to analyze various elements and for each case, we interviewed top managers, conducted focus groups with staff directly involved in the accreditation process, and analyzed self-assessment reports, accreditation reports and other case-related documents.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The context in which accreditation took place, including the organizational context, influenced the type of change dynamics that occurred in HCOs. Furthermore, while accreditation itself was not necessarily the element that initiated change, the accreditation process was a highly effective tool for (i) accelerating integration and stimulating a spirit of cooperation in newly merged HCOs; (ii) helping to introduce continuous quality improvement programs to newly accredited or not-yet-accredited organizations; (iii) creating new leadership for quality improvement initiatives; (iv) increasing social capital by giving staff the opportunity to develop relationships; and (v) fostering links between HCOs and other stakeholders. The study also found that HCOs' motivation to introduce accreditation-related changes dwindled over time.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We conclude that the accreditation process is an effective leitmotiv for the introduction of change but is nonetheless subject to a learning cycle and a learning curve. Institutions invest greatly to conform to the first accreditation visit and reap the greatest benefits in the next three accreditation cycles (3 to 10 years after initial accreditation). After 10 years, however, institutions begin to find accreditation less challenging. To maximize the benefits of the accreditation process, HCOs and accrediting bodies must seek ways to take full advantage of each stage of the accreditation process over time.</p

An effectiveness analysis of healthcare systems using a systems theoretic approach

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The use of accreditation and quality measurement and reporting to improve healthcare quality and patient safety has been widespread across many countries. A review of the literature reveals no association between the accreditation system and the quality measurement and reporting systems, even when hospital compliance with these systems is satisfactory. Improvement of health care outcomes needs to be based on an appreciation of the whole system that contributes to those outcomes. The research literature currently lacks an appropriate analysis and is fragmented among activities. This paper aims to propose an integrated research model of these two systems and to demonstrate the usefulness of the resulting model for strategic research planning.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>To achieve these aims, a systematic integration of the healthcare accreditation and quality measurement/reporting systems is structured hierarchically. A holistic systems relationship model of the administration segment is developed to act as an investigation framework. A literature-based empirical study is used to validate the proposed relationships derived from the model. Australian experiences are used as evidence for the system effectiveness analysis and design base for an adaptive-control study proposal to show the usefulness of the system model for guiding strategic research.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Three basic relationships were revealed and validated from the research literature. The systemic weaknesses of the accreditation system and quality measurement/reporting system from a system flow perspective were examined. The approach provides a system thinking structure to assist the design of quality improvement strategies. The proposed model discovers a fourth implicit relationship, a feedback between quality performance reporting components and choice of accreditation components that is likely to play an important role in health care outcomes. An example involving accreditation surveyors is developed that provides a systematic search for improving the impact of accreditation on quality of care and hence on the accreditation/performance correlation.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There is clear value in developing a theoretical systems approach to achieving quality in health care. The introduction of the systematic surveyor-based search for improvements creates an adaptive-control system to optimize health care quality. It is hoped that these outcomes will stimulate further research in the development of strategic planning using systems theoretic approach for the improvement of quality in health care.</p

Effectiveness of external inspection of compliance with standards in improving healthcare organisation behaviour, healthcare professional behaviour or patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Inspection systems are used in health care to promote quality improvements, i.e. to achieve changes in organisational structures or processes, healthcare provider behaviour and patient outcomes. These systems are based on the assumption that externally promoted adherence to evidence-based standards (through inspection/assessment) will result in higher quality of health care. However, the benefits of external inspection in terms of organisational, provider and patient level outcomes are not clear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of external inspection of compliance with standards in improving healthcare organisation behaviour, healthcare professional behaviour and patient outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases for studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, Scopus, HMIC, Index to Theses and Intute from their inception dates up to May 2011. There was no language restriction and studies were included regardless of publication status. We searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted authors of relevant papers, accreditation bodies and the International Organization for Standardisation (ISO), regarding any further published or unpublished work. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), interrupted time-series (ITSs) and controlled before and after studies (CBAs) evaluating the effect of external inspection against external standards on healthcare organisation change, healthcare professional behaviour or patient outcomes in hospitals, primary healthcare organisations and other community-based healthcare organisations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied eligibility criteria, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study. Since meta-analysis was not possible, we produced a narrative results summary. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one cluster-RCT involving 20 South African public hospitals (Salmon 2003) and one ITS involving all acute trusts in England (OPM 2009) for inclusion in this review.Salmon and colleagues (Salmon 2003) showed mixed effects of a hospital accreditation system on the compliance with COHSASA (the Council for Health Services Accreditation for South Africa) accreditation standards and eight indicators of hospital quality. Significantly improved total mean compliance score with COHSASA accreditation standards was found for 21/28 service elements: mean intervention effect (95% confidence interval (CI)) was 30% (23% to 57%) (P &lt; 0.001). The score increased from 48% to 78% in intervention hospitals, while remaining the same in control hospitals (43%). A sub-analysis of 424 a priori identified critical criteria (19 service elements) showed significantly improved compliance with the critical standards (P &lt; 0.001). The score increased from 41% (21% to 46%) to 75% (55% to 96%) in intervention hospitals, but was unchanged in control hospitals (37%). Only one of the nine intervention hospitals gained full accreditation status at the end of the study period, with two others reached pre-accreditation status.The median intervention effect (range) for the indicators of hospital quality of care was 2.4 (-1.9 to +11.8) and only one of the eight indicators: 'nurses perception of clinical quality, participation and teamwork' was significantly improved (mean intervention effect 5.7, P = 0.03).Re-analysis of the MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) data showed statistically non-significant effects of the Healthcare Commissions Infection Inspection programme. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We only identified two studies for inclusion in this review, which highlights the paucity of high-quality controlled evaluations of the effectiveness of external inspection systems. No firm conclusions could therefore be drawn about the effectiveness of external inspection on compliance with standards

External inspection of compliance with standards for improved healthcare outcomes

BACKGROUND: Inspection systems are used in healthcare to promote quality improvements (i.e. to achieve changes in organisational structures or processes, healthcare provider behaviour and patient outcomes). These systems are based on the assumption that externally promoted adherence to evidence-based standards (through inspection/assessment) will result in higher quality of healthcare. However, the benefits of external inspection in terms of organisational-, provider- and patient-level outcomes are not clear. This is the first update of the original Cochrane review, published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of external inspection of compliance with standards in improving healthcare organisation behaviour, healthcare professional behaviour and patient outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases for studies up to 1 June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, HMIC, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. There was no language restriction and we included studies regardless of publication status. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted authors of relevant papers, accreditation bodies and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), regarding any further published or unpublished work. We also searched an online database of systematic reviews (PDQ-evidence.org). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised trials (NRCTs), interrupted time series (ITSs) and controlled before-after studies (CBAs) evaluating the effect of external inspection against external standards on healthcare organisation change, healthcare professional behaviour or patient outcomes in hospitals, primary healthcare organisations and other community-based healthcare organisations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied eligibility criteria, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study. Since meta-analysis was not possible, we produced a narrative results summary. We used the GRADE tool to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any new eligible studies in this update. One cluster RCT involving 20 South African public hospitals and one ITS involving all acute hospital trusts in England, met the inclusion criteria. A trust is a National Health Service hospital which has opted to withdraw from local authority control and be managed by a trust instead.The cluster RCT reported mixed effects of external inspection on compliance with COHSASA (Council for Health Services Accreditation for South Africa) accreditation standards and eight indicators of hospital quality. Improved total compliance score with COHSASA accreditation standards was reported for 21/28 service elements: mean intervention effect was 30% (95% confidence interval (CI) 23% to 37%) (P < 0.001). The score increased from 48% to 78% in intervention hospitals, while remaining the same in control hospitals (43%). The median intervention effect for the indicators of hospital quality of care was 2.4% (range -1.9% to +11.8%).The ITS study evaluated compliance with policies to address healthcare-acquired infections and reported a mean reduction in MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) infection rates of 100 cases per quarter (95% CI -221.0 to 21.5, P = 0.096) at three months' follow-up and an increase of 70 cases per quarter (95% CI -250.5 to 391.0; P = 0.632) at 24 months' follow-up. Regression analysis showed similar MRSA rates before and after the external inspection (difference in slope 24.27, 95% CI -10.4 to 58.9; P = 0.147).Neither included study reported data on unanticipated/adverse consequences or economic outcomes. The cluster RCT reported mainly outcomes related to healthcare organisation change, and no patient reported outcomes other than patient satisfaction.The certainty of the included evidence from both studies was very low. It is uncertain whether external inspection accreditation programmes lead to improved compliance with accreditation standards. It is also uncertain if external inspection infection programmes lead to improved compliance with standards, and if this in turn influences healthcare-acquired MRSA infection rates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review highlights the paucity of high-quality controlled evaluations of the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of external inspection systems. If policy makers wish to understand the effectiveness of this type of intervention better, there needs to be further studies across a range of settings and contexts and studies reporting outcomes important to patients

External inspection of compliance with standards for improved healthcare outcomes

BACKGROUND: Inspection systems are used in healthcare to promote quality improvements (i.e. to achieve changes in organisational structures or processes, healthcare provider behaviour and patient outcomes). These systems are based on the assumption that externally promoted adherence to evidence-based standards (through inspection/assessment) will result in higher quality of healthcare. However, the benefits of external inspection in terms of organisational-, provider- and patient-level outcomes are not clear. This is the first update of the original Cochrane review, published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of external inspection of compliance with standards in improving healthcare organisation behaviour, healthcare professional behaviour and patient outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases for studies up to 1 June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, HMIC, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. There was no language restriction and we included studies regardless of publication status. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted authors of relevant papers, accreditation bodies and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), regarding any further published or unpublished work. We also searched an online database of systematic reviews (PDQ-evidence.org). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised trials (NRCTs), interrupted time series (ITSs) and controlled before-after studies (CBAs) evaluating the effect of external inspection against external standards on healthcare organisation change, healthcare professional behaviour or patient outcomes in hospitals, primary healthcare organisations and other community-based healthcare organisations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently applied eligibility criteria, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study. Since meta-analysis was not possible, we produced a narrative results summary. We used the GRADE tool to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any new eligible studies in this update. One cluster RCT involving 20 South African public hospitals and one ITS involving all acute hospital trusts in England, met the inclusion criteria. A trust is a National Health Service hospital which has opted to withdraw from local authority control and be managed by a trust instead.The cluster RCT reported mixed effects of external inspection on compliance with COHSASA (Council for Health Services Accreditation for South Africa) accreditation standards and eight indicators of hospital quality. Improved total compliance score with COHSASA accreditation standards was reported for 21/28 service elements: mean intervention effect was 30% (95% confidence interval (CI) 23% to 37%) (P &lt; 0.001). The score increased from 48% to 78% in intervention hospitals, while remaining the same in control hospitals (43%). The median intervention effect for the indicators of hospital quality of care was 2.4% (range -1.9% to +11.8%).The ITS study evaluated compliance with policies to address healthcare-acquired infections and reported a mean reduction in MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) infection rates of 100 cases per quarter (95% CI -221.0 to 21.5, P = 0.096) at three months' follow-up and an increase of 70 cases per quarter (95% CI -250.5 to 391.0; P = 0.632) at 24 months' follow-up. Regression analysis showed similar MRSA rates before and after the external inspection (difference in slope 24.27, 95% CI -10.4 to 58.9; P = 0.147).Neither included study reported data on unanticipated/adverse consequences or economic outcomes. The cluster RCT reported mainly outcomes related to healthcare organisation change, and no patient reported outcomes other than patient satisfaction.The certainty of the included evidence from both studies was very low. It is uncertain whether external inspection accreditation programmes lead to improved compliance with accreditation standards. It is also uncertain if external inspection infection programmes lead to improved compliance with standards, and if this in turn influences healthcare-acquired MRSA infection rates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review highlights the paucity of high-quality controlled evaluations of the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of external inspection systems. If policy makers wish to understand the effectiveness of this type of intervention better, there needs to be further studies across a range of settings and contexts and studies reporting outcomes important to patients