The VHA New England Medication Error Prevention Initiative as a Model for Long-Term Improvement Collaboratives

Pioneering a Nursing Home Quality Improvement Learning Collaborative: A Case Study of Method and Lessons Learned

OBJECTIVES

To describe the development of a nursing home (NH) quality improvement learning collaborative (QILC) that provides Lean Six Sigma (LSS) training and infrastructure support for quality assurance performance improvement change efforts.

DESIGN

Case report.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-seven NHs located in the Greater Rochester, NY area.

INTERVENTION

The learning collaborative approach in which interprofessional teams from different NHs work together to improve common clinical and organizational processes by sharing experiences and evidence-based practices to achieve measurable changes in resident outcomes and system efficiencies.

MEASUREMENTS

NH participation, curriculum design, LSS projects.

RESULTS

Over 6 years, 27 NHs from urban and rural settings joined the QILC as organizational members and sponsored 47 interprofessional teams to learn LSS techniques and tools, and to implement quality improvement projects.

CONCLUSIONS

NHs, in both urban and rural settings, can benefit from participation in QILCs and are able to learn and apply LSS tools in their team-based quality improvement efforts.

Understanding the components of quality improvement collaboratives: a systematic literature review

CONTEXT

In response to national efforts to improve quality of care, policymakers and health care leaders have increasingly turned to quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) as an efficient approach to improving provider practices and patient outcomes through the dissemination of evidence-based practices. This article presents findings from a systematic review of the literature on QICs, focusing on the identification of common components of QICs in health care and exploring, when possible, relations between QIC components and outcomes at the patient or provider level.

METHODS

A systematic search of five major health care databases generated 294 unique articles, twenty-four of which met our criteria for inclusion in our final analysis. These articles pertained to either randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies with comparison groups, and they reported the findings from twenty different studies of QICs in health care. We coded the articles to identify the components reported for each collaborative.

FINDINGS

We found fourteen crosscutting components as common ingredients in health care QICs (e.g., in-person learning sessions, phone meetings, data reporting, leadership involvement, and training in QI methods). The collaboratives reported included, on average, six to seven of these components. The most common were in-person learning sessions, plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles, multidisciplinary QI teams, and data collection for QI. The outcomes data from these studies indicate the greatest impact of QICs at the provider level; patient-level findings were less robust.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting on specific components of the collaborative was imprecise across articles, rendering it impossible to identify active QIC ingredients linked to improved care. Although QICs appear to have some promise in improving the process of care, there is great need for further controlled research examining the core components of these collaboratives related to patient- and provider-level outcomes.

Understanding the components of quality improvement collaboratives: a systematic literature review

CONTEXT

In response to national efforts to improve quality of care, policymakers and health care leaders have increasingly turned to quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) as an efficient approach to improving provider practices and patient outcomes through the dissemination of evidence-based practices. This article presents findings from a systematic review of the literature on QICs, focusing on the identification of common components of QICs in health care and exploring, when possible, relations between QIC components and outcomes at the patient or provider level.

METHODS

A systematic search of five major health care databases generated 294 unique articles, twenty-four of which met our criteria for inclusion in our final analysis. These articles pertained to either randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies with comparison groups, and they reported the findings from twenty different studies of QICs in health care. We coded the articles to identify the components reported for each collaborative.

FINDINGS

We found fourteen crosscutting components as common ingredients in health care QICs (e.g., in-person learning sessions, phone meetings, data reporting, leadership involvement, and training in QI methods). The collaboratives reported included, on average, six to seven of these components. The most common were in-person learning sessions, plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles, multidisciplinary QI teams, and data collection for QI. The outcomes data from these studies indicate the greatest impact of QICs at the provider level; patient-level findings were less robust.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting on specific components of the collaborative was imprecise across articles, rendering it impossible to identify active QIC ingredients linked to improved care. Although QICs appear to have some promise in improving the process of care, there is great need for further controlled research examining the core components of these collaboratives related to patient- and provider-level outcomes.

Predictors of the perceived impact of a patient safety collaborative: an exploratory study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of various factors on the perceived impact of a patient safety improvement collaborative in the UK, the Safer Patients Initiative (SPI).

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey design was used. Study setting Twenty National Health Service organizations from the UK that participated in the main phase of the SPI programme, which ran from September 2007 to 2008.

PARTICIPANTS

Senior executive leads, clinical operational leads in the four clinical areas targeted by the programme, programme coordinators and any other staff involved in the SPI (n = 635).

INTERVENTION

The SPI is a patient safety improvement intervention based on the Breakthrough Series Collaborative model (Institute of Healthcare Improvement, 2004) aimed at improving patient safety in four clinical areas (general ward care, intensive care, perioperative care and pharmacy) through implementing a number of evidence-based clinical practices and a focus on organizational leadership. Outcome measures Participant perceptions of the impact of the programme on their organizations.

RESULTS

Exploratory regression analysis showed that programme management, the value assigned to programme methodology and length of data collection contributed the largest variance in perceived impact of the SPI followed by perceived support from junior doctors, inter-professional collaboration, difference of the programme from existing safety improvement practices and organizational readiness.

CONCLUSIONS

The resulting model suggests hierarchical importance for a range of variables to support future research concerning the mechanisms by which large-scale organizational programmes, such as the SPI, impact on the care systems they are designed to influence.

The Massachusetts baby-friendly collaborative: lessons learned from an innovation to foster implementation of best practices

Collaborative efforts among hospitals can facilitate the exchange of ideas, provide a forum for discussing the development of new policies or practices or changes to existing policies and practices, and increase the implementation of best practices. In November 2008, the Massachusetts Breastfeeding Coalition formed a collaborative of maternity facilities wishing to pursue Baby-Friendly designation. Members provided insights from experiences and shared models and examples from outside. We describe highlights from the first 15 months of the Collaborative and present 4 recommendations for overcoming barriers: (1) manage expectations of patients, family/friends, and staff; (2) restrict access to materials that can undermine breastfeeding; (3) adopt the appropriate perspectives to creatively implement change; and (4) bundle, reframe, and harness larger forces. The strategies can be applied across diverse hospital settings.

Institutional attributes associated with innovation and improvement: results of a multisite study

BACKGROUND

To date, no studies have explored why some teaching hospitals and health systems appear to offer a more fertile environment for innovation and improvement in the learning environment. As a consequence, little is known about the role of organizational attributes and culture in fostering innovation and improvements in settings where residents learn and participate in care, though these have been studied extensively in the general literature on organizations.

AIMS

The goals of our study entailed (1) gathering ground-level observations on processes and common attributes; (2) disseminating this information for adoption and adaptation; and (3) exploring whether the current accreditation model may present barriers to institution- and program-level innovation.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study of 4 institutions, successful in innovation and improvement in their learning environment, and sought to replicate the findings with a second group of 5 institutions.

RESULTS

THREE THEMES EMERGED FROM THE INTERVIEWS AND SITE VISITS OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE ALPHA PHASE: (1) a structure and culture that promote integration and inclusion; (2) a recognition of the value of resident education to the institution; and (3) a learning organization rooted in the extensive use of data and ongoing change, improvement, and innovation.

CONCLUSIONS

Some of the concepts identified in our small sample of "innovative" institutions could be relatively easily adopted or adapted by others that seek to enhance innovation and improvement in the learning environment. In contrast, the structural factors that characterized 3 of the 4 alpha participants, particularly the organization and compensation of faculty, may not be generalizable to many other institutions.

Translating health care-associated urinary tract infection prevention research into practice via the bladder bundle

BACKGROUND

Catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), a frequent health care-associated infection (HAI), is a costly and common condition resulting in patient discomfort, activity restriction, and hospital discharge delays. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) no longer reimburses hospitals for the extra cost of caring for patients who develop CAUTI. The Michigan Health and Hospital Association (MHA) Keystone Center for Patient Safety & Quality has initiated a statewide initiative, MHA Keystone HAI, to help ameliorate the burden of disease associated with indwelling catheterization. In addition, a long-term research project is being conducted to evaluate the current initiative and to identify practical strategies to ensure the effective use of proven infection prevention and patient safety practices.

OVERVIEW OF THE BLADDER BUNDLE INITIATIVE IN MICHIGAN

The bladder bundle as conceived by MHA Keystone HAI focuses on preventing CAUTI by optimizing the use of urinary catheters with a specific emphasis on continual assessment and catheter removal as soon as possible, especially for patients without a clear indication. COLLABORATION BETWEEN RESEARChERS AND STATE WIDE PATIENT SAFETY ORGANIZATIONS: A synergistic collaboration between patient safety researchers and a statewide patient safety organization is aimed at identifying effective strategies to move evidence from peer-reviewed literature to the bedside. Practical strategies that facilitate implementation of the bundle will be developed and tested using mixed quantitative and qualitative methods.

DISCUSSION

Simply disseminating scientific evidence is often ineffective in changing clinical practice. Therefore, learning how to implement these findings is critically important to promoting high-quality care and a safe health care environment.