Adapting improvements to context: when, why and how?

There is evidence that practitioners applying quality improvements often adapt the improvement method or the change they are implementing, either unknowingly, or intentionally to fit their service or situation. This has been observed especially in programs seeking to spread or ‘scale up’ an improvement change to other services. Sometimes their adaptations result in improved outcomes, sometimes they do not, and sometimes they do not have data make this assessment or to describe the adaptation. The purpose of this paper is to summarize key points about adaptation and context discussed at the Salzburg Global Seminar in order to help improvers judge when and how to adapt an improvement change. It aims also to encourage more research into such adaptations to develop our understanding of the when, why and how of effective adaptation and to provide more research informed guidance to improvers. The paper gives examples to illustrate key issues in adaptation and to consider more systematic and purposeful adaptation of improvements so as to increase the chances of achieving improvements in different settings for different participants. We describe methods for assessing whether adaptation is necessary or likely to reduce the effectiveness of an improvement intervention, which adaptations might be required, and methods for collecting data to assess whether the adaptations are successful. We also note areas where research is most needed in order to enable more effective scale up of quality improvements changes and wider take up and use of the methods

challenges and opportunities from a public health perspective

ABSTRACT - Despite improvements in healthcare interventions, the incidence of adverse events and other patient safety problems constitutes a major contributor to the global burden of diseases and a concern for Public Health. In the last years there have been some successful individual and institutional efforts to approach patient safety issues in Portugal, unless such effort has been fragmented or focused on specific small areas. Long-term and global improvement has remained elusive, and most of all the improvement of patient safety in Portugal, must evaluate not only the efficacy of a change but also what was effective for implementing the change. Clearly, patient safety issues result from various combinations of individual, team, organization, system and patient factors. A systemic and integrated approach to promote patient safety must acknowledge and strive to understand the complexity of work systems and processes in health care, including the interactions between people, technology, and the environment. Safety errors cannot be productively attributed to a single human error. Our objective with this paper is to provide a brief overview of the status quo in patient safety in Portugal, highlighting key aspects that should be taken into account in the design of a strategy for improving patient safety. With these key aspects in mind, policy makers and implementers can move forward and make better decisions about which changes should be made and about the way the needed changes to improve patient safety should be implemented. The contribution of colleagues that are international leaders on healthcare quality and patient safety may also contribute to more innovative research methods needed to create the knowledge that promotes less costly successful changes.-------------------------- RESUMO – As questões relacionadas com a Segurança do Doente, e em particular, com a ocorrência de eventos adversos tem constituído, de há uns tempos a esta parte, uma crescente preocupação para as organizações de saúde, para os decisores políticos, para os profissionais de saúde e para os doentes/utentes e suas famílias, sendo por isso considerado um problema de Saúde Pública a que urge dar resposta. Em Portugal, nos últimos anos, têm sido desenvolvidos esforços baseados, maioritariamente, em iniciativas isoladas, para abordar os aspectos da Segurança do Doente. O facto de essas iniciativas não serem integradas numa estratégia explícita e de dimensão regional ou nacional, faz com que os resultados sejam parcelares e tenham visibilidade reduzida. Paralelamente, a melhoria da qualidade dos cuidados de saúde (a longo prazo) resultante dessas iniciativas tem sido esparsa e nem sempre a avaliação tem sido feita tendo em conta critérios de efectividade e de eficiência. A Segurança do Doente resulta da interacção de diversos factores relacionados, por um lado, com o doente e, por outro, com a prestação de cuidados que envolvem elementos de natureza individual (falhas activas) e organizacional/estrutural (falhas latentes). Devido à multifactorialidade que está na base de «problemas/falhas» na Segurança do Doente, qualquer abordagem a considerar deve ser sistémica e integrada. Simultaneamente, tais abordagens devem contemplar a compreensão da complexidade dos sistemas e dos processos de prestação de cuidados de saúde e as suas interdependências (envolvendo aspectos individuais, tecnológicos e ambientais). O presente trabalho tem por objectivo reflectir sobre o «estado da arte» da Segurança do Doente em Portugal, destacando os elementos-chave que se consideram decisivos para uma estratégia de acção nesse domínio. Com esses elementos os responsáveis pela governação da saúde poderão valorizar os aspectos que consideram decisivos para uma política de Segurança do Doente mais eficaz. A contribuição de quatro colegas internacionalmente reconhecidos como líderes na área da Qualidade em Saúde e da Segurança do Doente, constitui, por certo, uma oportunidade ímpar para a identificação e discussão de alguns dos principais desafios, ameaças e oportunidades que se colocarão, no curto prazo em Portugal, na área da Segurança do Doente.publishersversionpublishe

Developing and implementing an integrated delirium prevention system of care:a theory driven, participatory research study

Background: Delirium is a common complication for older people in hospital. Evidence suggests that delirium incidence in hospital may be reduced by about a third through a multi-component intervention targeted at known modifiable risk factors. We describe the research design and conceptual framework underpinning it that informed the development of a novel delirium prevention system of care for acute hospital wards. Particular focus of the study was on developing an implementation process aimed at embedding practice change within routine care delivery. Methods: We adopted a participatory action research approach involving staff, volunteers, and patient and carer representatives in three northern NHS Trusts in England. We employed Normalization Process Theory to explore knowledge and ward practices on delirium and delirium prevention. We established a Development Team in each Trust comprising senior and frontline staff from selected wards, and others with a potential role or interest in delirium prevention. Data collection included facilitated workshops, relevant documents/records, qualitative one-to-one interviews and focus groups with multiple stakeholders and observation of ward practices. We used grounded theory strategies in analysing and synthesising data. Results: Awareness of delirium was variable among staff with no attention on delirium prevention at any level; delirium prevention was typically neither understood nor perceived as meaningful. The busy, chaotic and challenging ward life rhythm focused primarily on diagnostics, clinical observations and treatment. Ward practices pertinent to delirium prevention were undertaken inconsistently. Staff welcomed the possibility of volunteers being engaged in delirium prevention work, but existing systems for volunteer support were viewed as a barrier. Our evolving conception of an integrated model of delirium prevention presented major implementation challenges flowing from minimal understanding of delirium prevention and securing engagement of volunteers alongside practice change. The resulting Prevention of Delirium (POD) Programme combines a multi-component delirium prevention and implementation process, incorporating systems and mechanisms to introduce and embed delirium prevention into routine ward practices. Conclusions: Although our substantive interest was in delirium prevention, the conceptual and methodological strategies pursued have implications for implementing and sustaining practice and service improvements more broadly

Plugging a hole and lightening the burden: A process evaluation of a practice education team

Aim: To investigate the perceptions of clinical and senior managers about the role of Practice Educators employed in one acute hospital in the UK. Background: Producing nurses who are fit for practice, purpose and academic award is a key issue for nurse education partnership providers in the UK. Various new models for practice learning support structures and new roles within health care institutions have been established. To sustain funding and policy support for these models, there is a need for evaluation research. Design: A process evaluation methodology was employed to determine the current value of a practice education team and to provide information to guide future direction. Methods: Data were collected through semi-structured telephone interviews using a previously designed schedule. All senior nurse managers (N=5) and a purposive sample of clinical managers (n=13) who had personal experience of and perceptions about the role of practice educators provided the data. Interview notes were transcribed, coded and a thematic framework devised to present the results. Results: A number of key themes emerged including: qualities needed for being a successful practice educator; visibility and presence of practice educators; providing a link with the university; ‘plugging a hole’ in supporting learning needs; providing relief to practitioners in dealing with ‘the burden of students’; alleviating the ‘plight of students’; and effects on student attrition. Conclusions: Findings provided evidence for the continued funding of the practice educator role with improvements to be made in dealing with stakeholder expectations and outcomes. Relevance to clinical practice: In the UK, there still remain concerns about the fitness for practice of newly registered nurses, prompting a recent national consultation by the professional regulating body. Despite fiscal pressures, recommendations for further strengthening of all systems that will support the quality of practice learning may continue to sustain practice learning support roles

Measuring persistence of implementation: QUERI Series

As more quality improvement programs are implemented to achieve gains in performance, the need to evaluate their lasting effects has become increasingly evident. However, such long-term follow-up evaluations are scarce in healthcare implementation science, being largely relegated to the "need for further research" section of most project write-ups. This article explores the variety of conceptualizations of implementation sustainability, as well as behavioral and organizational factors that influence the maintenance of gains. It highlights the finer points of design considerations and draws on our own experiences with measuring sustainability, framed within the rich theoretical and empirical contributions of others. In addition, recommendations are made for designing sustainability analyses

The structure of quality systems is important to the process and outcome, an empirical study of 386 hospital departments in Sweden

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Clinicians, nurses, and managers in hospitals are continuously confronted by new technologies and methods that require changes to working practice. Quality systems can help to manage change while maintaining a high quality of care. A new model of quality systems inspired by the works of Donabedian has three factors: structure (resources and administration), process (culture and professional co-operation), and outcome (competence development and goal achievement). The objectives of this study were to analyse whether structure, process, and outcome can be used to describe quality systems, to analyse whether these components are related, and to discuss implications.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A questionnaire was developed and sent to a random sample of 600 hospital departments in Sweden. The adjusted response rate was 75%. The data were analysed with confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling in LISREL. This is to our knowledge the first large quantitative study that applies Donabedian's model to quality systems.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The model with relationships between structure, process, and outcome was found to be a reasonable representation of quality systems at hospital departments (p = 0.095, indicating no significant differences between the model and the data set). Structure correlated strongly with process (0.72) and outcome (0.60). Given structure, process also correlated with outcome (0.20).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The model could be used to describe and evaluate single quality systems or to compare different quality systems. It could also be an aid to implement a systematic and evidence-based system for working with quality improvements in hospital departments.</p

Healthcare quality improvement and ‘work engagement’; concluding results from a national, longitudinal, cross-sectional study of the ‘Productive Ward-Releasing Time to Care’ programme

Concerns about patient safety and reducing harm have led to a particular focus on initiatives that improve healthcare quality. However Quality Improvement (QI) initiatives have in the past typically faltered because they fail to fully engage healthcare professionals, resulting in apathy and resistance amongst this group of key stakeholders. Productive Ward: Releasing Time to Care (PW) is a ward-based QI programme created to help ward-based teams redesign and streamline the way that they work; leaving more time to care for patients. PW is designed to engage and empower ward-based teams to improve the safety, quality and delivery of care

AIMD - A validated, simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies

Background: Proliferation of terms describing the science of effectively promoting and supporting the use of research evidence in healthcare policy and practice has hampered understanding and development of the field. To address this, an international Terminology Working Group developed and published a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies. This paper presents results of validation work and a second international workgroup meeting, culminating in the updated AIMD framework [Aims, Ingredients, Mechanism, Delivery]. Methods: Framework validity was evaluated against terminology schemas (n = 51); primary studies (n = 37); and reporting guidelines (n = 10). Framework components were independently categorized as fully represented, partly represented, or absent by two researchers. Opportunities to refine the framework were systematically recorded. A meeting of the expanded international Terminology Working Group updated the framework by reviewing and deliberating upon validation findings and refinement proposals. Results: There was variation in representativeness of the components across the three types of literature, in particular for the component 'causal mechanisms'. Analysis of primary studies revealed that representativeness of this concept lowered from 92 to 68% if only explicit, rather than explicit and non-explicit references to causal mechanisms were included. All components were very well represented in reporting guidelines, however the level of description of these was lower than in other types of literature. Twelve opportunities were identified to improve the framework, 9 of which were operationalized at the meeting. The updated AIMD framework comprises four components: (1) Aims: what do you want your intervention to achieve and for whom? (2) Ingredients: what comprises the intervention? (3) Mechanisms: how do you propose the intervention will work? and (4) Delivery: how will you deliver the intervention? Conclusions: The draft simplified framework was validated with reference to a wide range of relevant literature and improvements have enhanced useability. The AIMD framework could aid in the promotion of evidence into practice, remove barriers to understanding how interventions work, enhance communication of interventions and support knowledge synthesis. Future work needs to focus on developing and testing resources and educational initiatives to optimize use of the AIMD framework in collaboration with relevant end-user groups