Knowledge management infrastructure to support quality improvement: A qualitative study of maternity services in four European hospitals

What is best for Esther? A simple question that moves mindsets and improves care

BACKGROUND

Persons in need of services from different care providers in the health and welfare system often struggle when navigating between them. Connecting and coordinating different health and welfare providers is a common challenge for all involved. This study presents a long-term regional empirical example from Sweden-ESTHER, which has lasted for more than two decades-to show how some of those challenges could be met. The purpose of the study was to increase the understanding of how several care providers together could succeed in improving care by transforming a concept into daily practice, thus contributing with practical implications for other health and welfare contexts.

METHODS

The study is a retrospective longitudinal case study with a qualitative mixed-methods approach. Individual interviews and focus groups were performed with staff members and persons in need of care, and document analyses were conducted. The data covers experiences from 1995 to 2020, analyzed using an open inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

This study shows how co-production and person-centeredness could improve care for persons with multiple care needs involving more than one care provider through a well-established Quality Improvement strategy. Perseverance from a project to a mindset was shaped by promoting systems thinking in daily work and embracing the psychology of change during multidisciplinary, boundary-spanning improvement dialogues. Important areas were Incentives, Work in practice, and Integration, expressed through trust in frontline staff, simple rules, and continuous support from senior managers. A continuous learning approach including the development of local improvement coaches and co-production of care consolidated the integration in daily work.

CONCLUSIONS

The development was facilitated by a simple question: "What is best for Esther?" This question unified people, flattened the hierarchy, and reminded all care providers why they needed to improve together. Continuously focusing on and co-producing with the person in need of care strengthened the concept. Important was engaging the people who know the most-frontline staff and persons in need of care-in combination with permissive leadership and embracing quality improvement dimensions. Those insights can be useful in other health and welfare settings wanting to improve care involving several care providers.

Contextual Factors Affecting Implementation of Pediatric Quality Improvement Programs

OBJECTIVE

Context is a critical determinant of the effectiveness of quality improvement programs. We assessed the role of contextual factors in influencing the efforts of 5 diverse quality improvement projects as part of the Pediatric Quality Measure Program (PQMP) directed by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed methods study of 5 PQMP grantees involving semistructured interviews followed by structured worksheets to identify influential contextual factors. Semistructured interviews and worksheets were completed between August and October 2020. Participants were comprised of PQMP grantee teams (2-4 team members per team for a total of 15 participants). Coding and analysis was based on the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) framework.

RESULTS

Despite heterogeneity in the process and outcome targets of the PQMP initiatives, professional interactions, incentives and resources, and capacity for organizational change were the domains most commonly identified as influential across the grantees. While social, political, and legal factors was not commonly referenced as an important domain, payer or funder policies (a factor within this domain) was highlighted as one of the most influential factors. Overall, the incentives and resources domain was identified as the most influential.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that using a determinant framework, such as the TICD, is valuable in facilitating comparisons across heterogeneous projects, allowing us to identify key contextual factors influencing the implementation of pediatric quality measures across a diverse range of clinical topics and settings. Future quality improvement work should account for this and include resources to support infrastructure development in addition to program implementation.

Transferring, translating and transforming knowledge: the role of brokering in healthcare networks

PURPOSE

This research examines how knowledge and information are managed within two care networks. We develop a conceptual framework drawing on the notion of brokering and the 3T framework, which is used to describe the relative complexity of boundaries (referred to in the framework as syntactic, semantic and pragmatic) as well as capabilities and processes required to exchange information within the network. Previous research on brokering has focused on healthcare managers and professionals, but this research extends to patients and caregivers. Understanding knowledge exchange and brokering practices in healthcare is critical to the delivery of effective services.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

For this case research, non-participant observation and experienced-based interviews were undertaken with healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers within two care networks.

FINDINGS

The findings reveal brokering roles occupied by healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers support the transfer, translation and transformation of knowledge and information across functional and organisational boundaries. Enablers and disablers to brokering and the exchange of knowledge and information are also identified.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

The study is limited to two care networks for long-term conditions within the UK. Further research opportunities exist to examine similar care networks that extend across professional and organisational boundaries.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

This research informs healthcare professionals of the brokering capabilities that occur within networks and the enabling and disabling factors to managing knowledge across boundaries.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

This paper provides a conceptual framework that categorises how increased levels of knowledge and information exchange and brokering practices are managed within care networks.

Textbook outcome after rectal cancer surgery as a composite measure for quality of care: A population-based study

BACKGROUND

Textbook outcome is a composite measure of combined outcome indicators, which has been suggested to be of additional value over single outcome parameters in clinical auditing of surgical treatment. This study aimed to assess textbook outcome after rectal cancer surgery as short-term marker for quality of care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent elective rectal cancer surgery between 2012 and 2019 and registered in the Dutch ColoRectal Audit were included. Textbook outcome was achieved when the following criteria were met: 30-day and primary hospital admission survival, no reintervention, tumour-free margins, no postoperative complications, a hospital stay of less than 14 days and no readmission. Hospital variation was evaluated in case-mix corrected funnel-plots. A multilevel logistic regression analysis was performed to identify associated factors with textbook outcome.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 20,521 patients who underwent primary rectal cancer surgery, of whom 56.3% achieved textbook outcome. Postoperative complications were the main contributor to not achieving textbook outcome. Case-mix corrected funnel plots demonstrated that underperforming hospitals in 2012-2015 were no underperformers in 2016-2019 anymore. Female sex, laparoscopic surgery, and rectal resection without defunctioning stoma creation were positively associated with textbook outcome.

CONCLUSION

Textbook outcome after rectal cancer resection is mainly driven by postoperative complications. Although textbook outcome showed some discriminating value for identifying underperforming hospitals, it does not fit the plan-do-check-act cycle of clinical auditing. In our opinion, textbook outcome has little added value to the current outcome indicators for rectal cancer surgery.

Multilevel influences on resilient healthcare in six countries: an international comparative study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Resilient healthcare (RHC) is an emerging area of theory and applied research to understand how healthcare organisations cope with the dynamic, variable and demanding environments in which they operate, based on insights from complexity and systems theory. Understanding adaptive capacity has been a focus of RHC studies. Previous studies clearly show why adaptations are necessary and document the successful adaptive actions taken by clinicians. To our knowledge, however, no studies have thus far compared RHC across different teams and countries. There are gaps in the research knowledge related to the multilevel nature of resilience across healthcare systems and the team-based nature of adaptive capacity.This cross-country comparative study therefore aims to add knowledge of how resilience is enabled in diverse healthcare systems by examining adaptive capacity in hospital teams in six countries. The study will identify how team, organisational and national healthcare system factors support or hinder the ability of teams to adapt to variability and change. Findings from this study are anticipated to provide insights to inform the design of RHC systems by considering how macro-level and meso-level structures support adaptive capacity at the micro-level, and to develop guidance for organisations and policymakers.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study will employ a multiple comparative case study design of teams nested within hospitals, in turn embedded within six countries: Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and the UK. The design will be based on the Adaptive Teams Framework placing adaptive teams at the centre of the healthcare system with layers of environmental, organisational and system level factors shaping adaptive capacity. In each of the six countries, a focused mapping of the macro-level features of the healthcare system will be undertaken by using documentary sources and interviews with key informants operating at the macro-level.A sampling framework will be developed to select two hospitals in each country to ensure variability based on size, location and teaching status. Four teams will be selected in each hospital-one each of a structural, hybrid, responsive and coordinating team. A total of eight teams will be studied in each country, creating a total sample of 48 teams. Data collection methods will be observations, interviews and document analysis. Within-case analysis will be conducted according to a standardised template using a combination of deductive and inductive qualitative coding, and cross-case analysis will be conducted drawing on the Qualitative Comparative Analysis framework.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The overall Resilience in Healthcare research programme of which this study is a part has been granted ethical approval by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (Ref. No. 8643334 and Ref. No. 478838). Ethical approval will also be sought in each country involved in the study according to their respective regulatory procedures. Country-specific reports of study outcomes will be produced for dissemination online. A collection of case study summaries will be made freely available, translated into multiple languages. Brief policy communications will be produced to inform policymakers and regulators about the study results and to facilitate translation into practice. Academic dissemination will occur through publication in journals specialising in health services research. Findings will be presented at academic, policy and practitioner conferences, including the annual RHC Network meeting and other healthcare quality and safety conferences. Presentations at practitioner and academic conferences will include workshops to translate the findings into practice and influence quality and safety programmes internationally.