Getting boards on board: engaging governing boards in quality and safety

Safety incident reporting and barriers (SIRaB) study: Strategies and approaches for investigating patient safety events in a hospital set-up

BACKGROUND

Unsafe patient events not only entail a clinical impact but also lead to economic burden in terms of prolonged hospitalization or unintended harm and delay in care delivery. Monitoring and time-bound investigation of patient safety events (PSEs) is of paramount importance in a healthcare set-up.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the safety incident reporting behaviour and the barriers in a hospital set-up.

METHODS

The study had two sections: (a) Retrospective assessment of all safety incidents in the past 1 year, and (b) Understanding the barriers of safety reporting by interviewing the major stakeholders in patient safety reporting framework. Further root cause analysis and failure mode effect analysis were performed for the situation observed. Results were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the total of 106 PSEs reported voluntarily to the system, the highest reporting functional group was that of nurses (40.57%), followed by physicians (18.87%) and pharmacists (17.92%). Among the various factors identified as barriers in safety incident reporting, fear of litigation was the most observed component. The most commonly observed event was those pertaining to medication management, followed by diagnostic delay. Glitches in healthcare delivery accounted for 8.73% of the total reported PSEs, followed by 5.72% of events occurring due to inter-stakeholder communication errors. 4.22% of the PSEs were attributed to organizational managerial dysfunctionalities. Majority of medication-related PSE has moderate risk prioritization gradation.

CONCLUSION

Effective training and sensitization regarding the need to report the patient unsafe incidents or near misses to the healthcare system can help avert many untoward experiences. The notion of 'No Blame No Shame' should be well inculcated within the minds of each hospital unit such that even if an error occurs, its prompt reporting does not get harmed.

Board level “Picture-Understanding-Action”: a new way of looking at quality

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to present a quality improvement approach titled “Picture-Understanding-Action” used in Ireland to enhance the role of healthcare boards in the oversight of healthcare quality and its improvement.

Design/methodology/approach

The novel and practical “Picture-Understanding-Action” approach was implemented using the Model for Improvement to iteratively introduce changes across three quality improvement projects. This approach outlines the concepts and activities used at each step to support planning and implementation of processes that allow a board to effectively achieve its role in overseeing and improving quality. This approach matured over three quality improvement projects.

Findings

The “Picture” included quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative “Picture” consisted of a quality dashboard/profile of board selected outcome indicators representative of the health system using statistical process control (SPC) charts to focus discussion on real signals of change. The qualitative picture was based on the experience of people who use and work in health services which “people-ised” the numbers. Probing this “Picture” with collective grounding, curiosity and expert training/facilitation developed a shared “Understanding”. This led to “Action(s)” from board members to improve the “Picture” and “Understanding” (feedback action), to ask better questions and make better decisions and recommendations to the executive (feed-forward action). The Model for Improvement, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles and a co-design approach in design and implementation were key to success.

Originality/value

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first time a board has undertaken a quality improvement (QI) project to enhance its own processes. It addresses a gap in research by outlining actions that boards can take to improve their oversight of quality of care.

Guidelines for Leading a Safe Medication Error Reporting Culture

Background: A safe medication error reporting culture is one that promotes, fosters, and rewards the reporting of errors and events across the spectrum of harm (none to significant harm). For this culture to develop, leaders must key department cultural norms. These cultural norms include making employees feel psychologically safe to report errors, and to establish a culture of error review and follow-up that complies with best practices. Objective: This article reviews how pharmacy leaders can establish this environment by describing (1) setting an appropriate vision for safety as a priority; (2) establishing and actively supporting the concept of psychological safety; and (3) implementing medication error review that support an effective safety culture. Finally, the article discusses a case where the relationships between psychological safety, safety culture, and reporting culture are described. Methods: This article reviews the literature and authors' experiences in designing a safety culture for a pharmacy department. Concluson: A safe reporting culture requires leaders to be humble, engage their staff in dialogue, objectively measure culture, consistently provide feedback, and empower its people. Employing these leadership traits with best practices can improve overall medication safety and the quality of patient-centered pharmacy services.

Associations between work satisfaction, engagement and 7-day patient mortality: a cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the association between profession-specific work environments and the 7-day mortality of patients admitted to these units with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke and hip fracture.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study combining patient mortality data extracted from the South-Eastern Norway Health Region, and the work environment scores at the hospital ward levels. A case-mix adjustment model was developed for the comparison between hospital wards.

SETTING

Fifty-six patient wards in 20 hospitals administered by the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority.

PARTICIPANTS

In total, 46 026 patients admitted to hospitals with AMI, stroke and hip fracture, and supported by 8800 survey responses from physicians, nurses and managers over a 3-year period (2010-2012).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measures were the associations between the relative mortality rate for patients admitted with AMI, stroke and hip fractures and the profession-specific (ie, nurses, physicians, middle managers) mean scores on the 19 organisational factors in a validated cross sectional, staff survey conducted annually in Norway. The secondary outcome measures were the mean scores with SD on the organisational factors in the staff survey reported by each profession.

RESULTS

The Nurse workload (beta 0.019 (95% CI0.009-0.028)) and middle manager engagement (beta 0.024 (95% CI0.010-0.037)) levels were associated with a case-mix adjusted 7-day patient mortality rates. There was no significant association between physician work environment scores and patient mortality rates.

CONCLUSION

7-day mortality rates in hospital wards were negatively correlated with the nurse workload and manager engagement levels. A deeper understanding of the relationships between patient outcomes, organisational structure and their underlying cultural barriers is needed because they may provide a better understanding of the harm and death risks for patients due to organisational characteristics.

Understanding corporate governance of healthcare quality: a comparative case study of eight Australian public hospitals

Background

Patients are sometimes harmed in the course of receiving hospital care. Existing research has highlighted a positive association between board engagement in healthcare quality activities and healthcare outcomes. However, most research has been undertaken through surveys examining board engagement in a limited number of governance processes. This paper presents evidence of a comprehensive range of processes related to governing healthcare quality undertaken at the corporate governance level. This provides a more detailed picture than previously described of how corporate governance of healthcare quality is enacted by boards and management.

Methods

A comparative case study of eight Australian public hospitals was undertaken. Case studies varying is size and location were selected from two Australian states. Data collection included a review of key governance documentation, semi structured interviews with board members and senior management and an observation of a board quality committee meeting. Thematic analysis was undertaken to identify processes related to key tasks in governing healthcare quality.

Results

Two key tasks in the corporate governance of healthcare quality, evaluating healthcare quality and overseeing quality priorities, were examined. Numerous processes related to these two tasks were found. Case studies, while found to be similar in engagement on previously identified processes, were found to differ in engagement in these additional processes. While generally low levels of engagement in processes of overseeing quality priorities were found, cases differed markedly in their engagement in evaluating healthcare quality processes. Additional processes undertaken at some case studies represent innovative and mature responses to the need for effective corporate governance of healthcare quality. In addition, a group of processes, related to broader governance taskwork, were found to be important in enabling effective corporate governance of healthcare quality.

Conclusion

The work of governing healthcare quality, undertaken at the corporate governance level, is redefined in terms of these more detailed processes. This paper highlights that it is how well these key tasks are undertaken that is important in effective governance. When processes related to key tasks are omitted, the rituals of governance may appear to be satisfied but the responsibility may not be met. Boards and managers need to differentiate between common approaches to governance and practices that enable the fulfilment of governance responsibilities. This study provides practical guidance in outlining processes for effective corporate governance of healthcare quality and highlights areas for further examination.

Exploring leadership styles in government hospitals in Kuwait

PURPOSE

This paper aims to determine and assess leadership styles in six government general hospitals.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

This is a cross-sectional study that uses a self-administered questionnaire to determine the leadership styles by self or followers' rating. The participants were 66 leaders and 1,626 followers. The data were analyzed using suitable statistical methods.

FINDINGS

The prevailing leadership style of hospitals' leaders is the transformational style, where self-rating as transformational is higher than followers' rating. The demographic characteristics of leaders are statistically insignificant.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

Other health-care settings were not included in the study. In addition, the study is designed to determine the relationship between variables, not to identify cause and effect. However, effective leadership has a substantial value and impact in health care. The paper confirms the existence of a transformational style effect on all organizational outcomes and represents a baseline for future studies in determining leadership styles and organizational culture types to highlight improvement areas.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The paper recommends designing training programs to improve transformational leadership behavior. Moreover, investment in research is needed to understand how to build transformational leaders. In addition, leaders' recruitment must be conditioned by obtaining a leadership certification.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

This topic is under-researched in Kuwait health-care system. The use of leadership style as an indicator for a health-care organization's performance is still not well known in Kuwait.

Preventing Egregious Ethical Violations in Medical Practice: Evidence-Informed Recommendations from a Multidisciplinary Working Group

This article reports the consensus recommendations of a working group that was convened at the end of a 4-year research project funded by the National Institutes of Health that examined 280 cases of egregious ethical violations in medical practice. The group reviewed data from the parent project, as well as other research on sexual abuse of patients, criminal prescribing of controlled substances, and unnecessary invasive procedures that were prosecuted as fraud. The working group embraced the goals of making such violations significantly less frequent and, when they do occur, identifying them sooner and taking necessary steps to ensure they are not repeated. Following review of data and previously published recommendations, the working group developed 10 recommendations that provide a starting point to meet these goals. Recommendations address leadership, oversight, tracking, disciplinary actions, education of patients, partnerships with law enforcement, further research and related matters. The working group recognized the need for further refinement of the recommendations to ensure feasibility and appropriate balance between protection of patients and fairness to physicians. While full implementation of appropriate measures will require time and study, we believe it is urgent to take visible actions to acknowledge and address the problem at hand.

Self-Reported Adherence to High Reliability Practices Among Participants in the Children's Hospitals' Solutions for Patient Safety Collaborative

BACKGROUND

Application of high reliability principles has the potential to transform the health care industry to perform with a higher level of safety than is present today. The purpose of this study was to quantitatively assess and describe the extent and variability of integration of high reliability practices among a collaborative of children's hospitals using the High Reliability Health Care Maturity (HRHCM) model.

METHODS

A survey instrument based on the HRHCM model was developed to determine the extent of integration of high reliability practices across hospitals participating in the Children's Hospitals' Solutions for Patient Safety (CHSPS) network. The survey was distributed with instructions for completion to obtain a single organizational response, which was then used to quantify the extent to which high reliability attributes were implemented at each organization.

RESULTS

Of the 95 institutions in the CHSPS at the time of the study, 46 provided a complete response to the survey (48.4% response rate). The overall mean score for high reliability was 42.3 (range: 28-53), which places the cohort in the stage of approaching high reliability. Of the responding organizations, none fell into the beginning stage, while 15.2% landed in the developing, 4.3% in the advancing, and 80.4% in the approaching high reliability stages.

CONCLUSION

Understanding high reliability attributes and assessing the location of individual and collaborative-wide sites along the high reliability continuum using this maturity model identify opportunities for organizations as they progress on their high reliability journey. Our results suggest opportunity in all domains of the high reliability maturity model for the majority of participating children's hospitals.

Important factors for effective patient safety governance auditing: a questionnaire survey

Background

Audits are increasingly used for patient safety governance purposes. However, there is little insight into the factors that hinder or stimulate effective governance based on auditing. The aim of this study is to quantify the factors that influence effective auditing for hospital boards and executives.

Methods

A questionnaire of 32 factors was developed using influencing factors found in a qualitative study on effective auditing. Factors were divided into four categories. The questionnaire was sent to the board of directors, chief of medical staff, nursing officer, medical department head and director of the quality and safety department of 89 acute care hospitals in the Netherlands.

Results

We approached 522 people, of whom 211 responded. Of the 32 factors in the questionnaire, 30 factors had an agreement percentage higher than 50%. Important factors per category were ‘audit as an improvement tool as well as a control tool’, ‘department is aware of audit purpose’, ‘quality of auditors’ and ‘learning culture at department’. We found 14 factors with a significant difference in agreement between stakeholders of at least 20%. Amongst these were ‘medical specialist on the audit team’, ‘soft signals in the audit report’, ‘patients as auditors’ and ‘post-audit support’.

Conclusion

We found 30 factors for effective auditing, which we synthesised into eight recommendations to optimise audits. Hospitals can use these recommendations as a framework for audits that enable boards to become more in control of patient safety in their hospital.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3577-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Exploring unnecessary invasive procedures in the United States: a retrospective mixed-methods analysis of cases from 2008-2016

BACKGROUND

Unnecessary invasive procedures risk harming patients physically, emotionally, and financially. Very little is known about the factors that provide the motive, means, and opportunity (MMO) for unnecessary procedures.

METHODS

This project used a mixed-methods design that involved five key steps: (1) systematically searching the literature to identify cases of unnecessary procedures reported from 2008 to 2016; (2) identifying all medical board, court, and news records on relevant cases; (3) coding all relevant records using a structured codebook of case characteristics; (4) analyzing each case using a MMO framework to develop a causal theory of the case; and (5) identifying typologies of cases through a two-step cluster analysis using variables hypothesized to be causally related to unnecessary procedures.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine cases met inclusion criteria. The mean number of documents or sources examined for each case was 36.4. Unnecessary procedures were performed for at least five years in most cases (53.2%); 56.3% of the cases involved 30 or more patients, and 37.5% involved 100 or more patients. In nearly all cases the physician was male (96.2%) and working in private practice (92.4%); 57.0% of the physicians had an accomplice, 48.1% were 50 years of age or older, and 40.5% trained outside the U.S. The most common motives were financial gain (92.4%) and suspected antisocial personality (48.1%), followed by poor problem-solving or clinical skills (11.4%) and ambition (3.8%). The most common environmental factors that provided opportunity for unnecessary procedures included a lack of oversight (40.5%) or oversight failures (39.2%), a corrupt moral climate (26.6%), vulnerable patients (20.3%), and financial conflicts of interest (13.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Unnecessary procedures usually appear motivated by financial gain and occur in settings that have oversight problems. Preventive efforts should focus on early detection by peers and institutions, and decisive action by medical boards and federal prosecutors.

Improving patient safety through the involvement of patients: development and evaluation of novel interventions to engage patients in preventing patient safety incidents and protecting them against unintended harm

Background

Estimates suggest that, in NHS hospitals, incidents causing harm to patients occur in 10% of admissions, with costs to the NHS of > £2B. About one-third of harmful events are believed to be preventable. Strategies to reduce patient safety incidents (PSIs) have mostly focused on changing systems of care and professional behaviour, with the role that patients can play in enhancing the safety of care being relatively unexplored. However, although the role and effectiveness of patient involvement in safety initiatives is unclear, previous work has identified a general willingness among patients to contribute to initiatives to improve health-care safety.

Aim

Our aim in this programme was to design, develop and evaluate four innovative approaches to engage patients in preventing PSIs: assessing risk, reporting incidents, direct engagement in preventing harm and education and training.

Methods and results

We developed tools to report PSIs [patient incident reporting tool (PIRT)] and provide feedback on factors that might contribute to PSIs in the future [Patient Measure of Safety (PMOS)]. These were combined into a single instrument and evaluated in the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) intervention using a randomised design. Although take-up of the intervention by, and retention of, participating hospital wards was 100% and patient participation was high at 86%, compliance with the intervention, particularly the implementation of action plans, was poor. We found no significant effect of the intervention on outcomes at 6 or 12 months. The ThinkSAFE project involved the development and evaluation of an intervention to support patients to directly engage with health-care staff to enhance their safety through strategies such as checking their care and speaking up to staff if they had any concerns. The piloting of ThinkSAFE showed that the approach is feasible and acceptable to users and may have the potential to improve patient safety. We also developed a patient safety training programme for junior doctors based on patients who had experienced PSIs recounting their own stories. This approach was compared with traditional methods of patient safety teaching in a randomised controlled trial. The study showed that delivering patient safety training based on patient narratives is feasible and had an effect on emotional engagement and learning about communication. However, there was no effect on changing general attitudes to safety compared with the control.

Conclusion

This research programme has developed a number of novel interventions to engage patients in preventing PSIs and protecting them against unintended harm. In our evaluations of these interventions we have been unable to demonstrate any improvement in patient safety although this conclusion comes with a number of caveats, mainly about the difficulty of measuring patient safety outcomes. Reflecting this difficulty, one of our recommendations for future research is to develop reliable and valid measures to help efficiently evaluate safety improvement interventions. The programme found patients to be willing to codesign, coproduce and participate in initiatives to prevent PSIs and the approaches used were feasible and acceptable. These factors together with recent calls to strengthen the patient voice in health care could suggest that the tools and interventions from this programme would benefit from further development and evaluation.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN07689702.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Effective board governance of safe care: a (theoretically underpinned) cross-sectioned examination of the breadth and depth of relationships through national quantitative surveys and in-depth qualitative case studies

Background

Recent high-profile reports into serious failings in the quality of hospital care in the NHS raise concerns over the ability of trust boards to discharge their duties effectively.

Objectives

Our study aimed to generate theoretically grounded empirical evidence on the associations between board governance, patient safety processes and patient-centred outcomes. The specific aims were as follows: (1) to identify the types of governance activities undertaken by hospital trust boards in the English NHS with regard to ensuring safe care in their organisation; (2) in foundation trusts, to explore the role of boards and boards of governors with regards to the oversight of patient safety in their organisation; (3) to assess the association between particular hospital trust board oversight activities and patient safety processes and clinical outcomes; (4) to identify the facilitators and barriers to developing effective hospital trust board governance of safe care; and (5) to assess the impact of external commissioning arrangements and incentives on hospital trust board oversight of patient safety.

Methods

The study comprised three distinct but interlocking strands: (1) a narrative systematic review in order to describe, interpret and synthesise key findings and debates concerning board oversight of patient safety; (2) in-depth mixed-methods case studies in four organisations to assess the impact of hospital board governance and external incentives on patient safety processes and outcomes; and (3) two national surveys exploring board management in NHS acute and specialist hospital trusts in England, and relating board characteristics to whole-organisation outcomes.

Results

A very high proportion of trust boards reported the kinds of desirable characteristics and board-related processes that research says may be associated with higher performance. Our analysis of the symbolic aspects of board activities highlights the role and differences in local processes of organising the governance of patient safety. Most boards do allocate a considerable amount of time to discussing patient safety and quality-related issues and were using a wide range of hard performance metrics and soft intelligence to monitor its organisation with regard to patient safety. Although the board of governors is generally perceived to be well-meaning, they were also considered to be being largely ineffective in helping to promote and deliver safer care for their organisations. We did not find any statistically significant relationship between board attributes (self-reported) and processes and any patient safety outcome measures. However, we did find a significant relationship between two dimensions of the Board Self-Assessment Questionnaire and two specific-and-related national staff survey organisational ‘process’ measures: (1) staff feeling safe to raise concerns about errors, near-misses and incidents and (2) staff feeling confident that their organisation would address their concerns, if raised. We also found that contracting and external financial incentives appeared to play only a relatively minor role in incentivising quality and safety improvement.

Conclusions

Our research is the first large-scale mixed-methods study of hospital board activity and behaviour related to the oversight of patient safety in the English NHS and the key findings should be used to influence the design of future governance arrangements as well as the training and support of board. Our finding that board governance/competencies appear to be linked to staff feeling safe to raise concerns about patient safety issues, and also their confidence that their organisation would address their concern, is worthy of further and more sustained exploration, particularly in the context of the current focus on improving whistleblowing policies in the NHS.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

A realist analysis of hospital patient safety in Wales: applied learning for alternative contexts from a multisite case study

Background

Hospital patient safety is a major social problem. In the UK, policy responses focus on the introduction of improvement programmes that seek to implement evidence-based clinical practices using the Model for Improvement, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle. Empirical evidence that the outcomes of such programmes vary across hospitals demonstrates that the context of their implementation matters. However, the relationships between features of context and the implementation of safety programmes are both undertheorised and poorly understood in empirical terms.

Objectives

This study is designed to address gaps in conceptual, methodological and empirical knowledge about the influence of context on the local implementation of patient safety programmes.

Design

We used concepts from critical realism and institutional analysis to conduct a qualitative comparative-intensive case study involving 21 hospitals across all seven Welsh health boards. We focused on the local implementation of three focal interventions from the 1000 Lives+patient safety programme: Improving Leadership for Quality Improvement, Reducing Surgical Complications and Reducing Health-care Associated Infection. Our main sources of data were 160 semistructured interviews, observation and 1700 health policy and organisational documents. These data were analysed using the realist approaches of abstraction, abduction and retroduction.

Setting

Welsh Government and NHS Wales.

Participants

Interviews were conducted with 160 participants including government policy leads, health managers and professionals, partner agencies with strategic oversight of patient safety, advocacy groups and academics with expertise in patient safety.

Main outcome measures

Identification of the contextual factors pertinent to the local implementation of the 1000 Lives+patient safety programme in Welsh NHS hospitals.

Results

An innovative conceptual framework harnessing realist social theory and institutional theory was produced to address challenges identified within previous applications of realist inquiry in patient safety research. This involved the development and use of an explanatory intervention–context–mechanism–agency–outcome (I-CMAO) configuration to illustrate the processes behind implementation of a change programme. Our findings, illustrated by multiple nested I-CMAO configurations, show how local implementation of patient safety interventions are impacted and modified by particular aspects of context: specifically, isomorphism, by which an intervention becomes adapted to the environment in which it is implemented; institutional logics, the beliefs and values underpinning the intervention and its source, and their perceived legitimacy among different groups of health-care professionals; and the relational structure and power dynamics of the functional group, that is, those tasked with implementing the initiative. This dynamic interplay shapes and guides actions leading to the normalisation or the rejection of the patient safety programme.

Conclusions

Heightened awareness of the influence of context on the local implementation of patient safety programmes is required to inform the design of such interventions and to ensure their effective implementation and operationalisation in the day-to-day practice of health-care teams. Future work is required to elaborate our conceptual model and findings in similar settings where different interventions are introduced, and in different settings where similar innovations are implemented.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Supporting and activating clinical governance development in Ireland: sharing our learning

Purpose

– The purpose of this paper is to present a description of the Irish national clinical governance development initiative and an evaluation of the initiative with the purpose of sharing the learning and proposing actions to activate structures and processes for quality and safety. The Quality and Patient Safety Division of the Health Service Executive established the initiative to counterbalance a possible focus on finances during the economic crisis in Ireland and bring attention to the quality of clinical care.

Design/methodology/approach

– A clinical governance framework for quality in healthcare in Ireland was developed to clearly articulate the fundamentals of clinical governance. The project plan involved three overlapping phases. The first was designing resources for practice; the second testing the implementation of the national resources in practice; and the third phase focused on gathering feedback and learning.

Findings

– Staff responded positively to the clinical governance framework. At a time when there are a lot of demands (measurement and scrutiny) the health services leads and responds well to focused support as they improve the quality and safety of services. Promoting the use of the term “governance for quality and safety” assisted in gaining an understanding of the more traditional term “clinical governance”. The experience and outcome of the initiative informed the identification of 12 key learning points and a series of recommendations

Research limitations/implications

– The initial evaluation was conducted at 24 months so at this stage it is not possible to assess the broader impact of the clinical governance framework beyond the action project hospitals.

Practical implications

– The single most important obligation for any health system is patient safety and improving the quality of care. The easily accessible, practical resources assisted project teams to lead changes in structures and processes within their services. This paper describes the fundamentals of the clinical governance framework which might serve as a guide for more integrative research endeavours on governance for quality and safety.

Originality/value

– Experience was gained in both the development of national guidance and their practical use in targeted action projects activating structures and processes that are a prerequisite to delivering safe quality services.

The role of hospital managers in quality and patient safety: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To review the empirical literature to identify the activities, time spent and engagement of hospital managers in quality of care.

DESIGN

A systematic review of the literature.

METHODS

A search was carried out on the databases MEDLINE, PSYCHINFO, EMBASE, HMIC. The search strategy covered three facets: management, quality of care and the hospital setting comprising medical subject headings and key terms. Reviewers screened 15,447 titles/abstracts and 423 full texts were checked against inclusion criteria. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed on 19 included articles.

RESULTS

The majority of studies were set in the USA and investigated Board/senior level management. The most common research designs were interviews and surveys on the perceptions of managerial quality and safety practices. Managerial activities comprised strategy, culture and data-centred activities, such as driving improvement culture and promotion of quality, strategy/goal setting and providing feedback. Significant positive associations with quality included compensation attached to quality, using quality improvement measures and having a Board quality committee. However, there is an inconsistency and inadequate employment of these conditions and actions across the sample hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence that managers' time spent and work can influence quality and safety clinical outcomes, processes and performance. However, there is a dearth of empirical studies, further weakened by a lack of objective outcome measures and little examination of actual actions undertaken. We present a model to summarise the conditions and activities that affect quality performance.

How public hospitals respond to and use a national serious and sentinel events report: A qualitative study in New Zealand

How and if public hospital leaders in a national health system use an annual Serious and Sentinel Events (SSE) report, an aim of which is to stimulate improvements in health care quality and patient safety, is an important question that is under-researched. This exploratory qualitative study in New Zealand using semi-structured interviews was undertaken in response. Interviewees included 29 representatives in patient safety leadership roles from 20 hospital districts, each of whom were recommended by their Chief Executives. Four themes describing factors contributing to the use of the SSE report were identified: response to the report itself; perceived use of and value of the report as a quality improvement tool; collaboration amongst hospitals around the findings; and, the priority given to improving quality within respondents' healthcare organisations. This article provides examples of these themes and how they relate to the use of the SSE report as a quality improvement tool. The article concludes that an annual SSE report has the potential to be a very useful tool for health care leaders in addressing SSEs. However, it also suggests that the report is underutilised and consequently some of this potential is lost. This may be explained by hospital capacity to absorb information from, and respond to, the SSE report.

Is emergency department quality related to other hospital quality domains?

OBJECTIVES

Systems theory suggests that there should be relatively high correlations among quality measures within an organization. This was an examination of hospital performance across three types of quality measures included in Medicare's Hospital Inpatient Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program: emergency department (ED)-related clinical process measures, inpatient clinical process measures, and patient experience measures. The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether hospital achievement and improvement on the ED quality measures represent a distinct domain of quality.

METHODS

This was an exploratory, descriptive analysis using publicly available data. Composite scores for the ED, inpatient, and patient experience measures included in the HVBP program were calculated. Correlations and frequencies were run to examine the extent to which achievement and improvement were related across the three quality domains and the number of hospitals that were in the top quartile for performance across multiple quality domains.

RESULTS

Achievement scores were calculated for 2,927 hospitals, and improvement scores were calculated for 2,842 hospitals. There was a positive, moderate correlation between ED and inpatient achievement scores (correlation coefficient of 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.47 to 0.53), but all other correlations were weak (0.16 or less). Only 96 hospitals (3.3%) scored in the top quartile for achievement across the three quality domains; 73 (2.6%) scored in the top quartile for improvement across all three quality domains.

CONCLUSIONS

Little consistency was found in achievement or improvement across the three quality domains, suggesting that the ED performance represents a distinct domain of quality. Implications include the following: 1) there are broad opportunities for hospitals to improve, 2) patients may not experience consistent quality levels throughout their hospital visit, 3) quality improvement interventions may need to be tailored specifically to the department, and 4) consumers and policy-makers may not be able to draw conclusions on overall facility quality based on information about one domain.

Integrating patient safety into health professionals' curricula: a qualitative study of medical, nursing and pharmacy faculty perspectives

BACKGROUND

As efforts to integrate patient safety into health professional curricula increase, there is growing recognition that the rate of curricular change is very slow, and there is a shortage of research that addresses critical perspectives of faculty who are on the 'front-lines' of curricular innovation. This study reports on medical, nursing and pharmacy teaching faculty perspectives about factors that influence curricular integration and the preparation of safe practitioners.

METHODS

Qualitative methods were used to collect data from 20 faculty members (n=6 medical from three universities; n=6 pharmacy from two universities; n=8 nursing from four universities) engaged in medical, nursing and pharmacy education. Thematic analysis generated a comprehensive account of faculty perspectives.

RESULTS

Faculty perspectives on key challenges to safe practice vary across the three disciplines, and these different perspectives lead to different priorities for curricular innovation. Additionally, accreditation and regulatory requirements are driving curricular change in medicine and pharmacy. Key challenges exist for health professional students in clinical teaching environments where the culture of patient safety may thwart the preparation of safe practitioners.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient safety curricular innovation depends on the interests of individual faculty members and the leveraging of accreditation and regulatory requirements. Building on existing curricular frameworks, opportunities now need to be created for faculty members to act as champions of curricular change, and patient safety educational opportunities need to be harmonises across all health professional training programmes. Faculty champions and practice setting leaders can collaborate to improve the culture of patient safety in clinical teaching and learning settings.

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.

Hospital board oversight of quality and patient safety: a narrative review and synthesis of recent empirical research

CONTEXT

Recurring problems with patient safety have led to a growing interest in helping hospitals' governing bodies provide more effective oversight of the quality and safety of their services. National directives and initiatives emphasize the importance of action by boards, but the empirical basis for informing effective hospital board oversight has yet to receive full and careful review.

METHODS

This article presents a narrative review of empirical research to inform the debate about hospital boards' oversight of quality and patient safety. A systematic and comprehensive search identified 122 papers for detailed review. Much of the empirical work appeared in the last ten years, is from the United States, and employs cross-sectional survey methods.

FINDINGS

Recent empirical studies linking board composition and processes with patient outcomes have found clear differences between high- and low-performing hospitals, highlighting the importance of strong and committed leadership that prioritizes quality and safety and sets clear and measurable goals for improvement. Effective oversight is also associated with well-informed and skilled board members. External factors (such as regulatory regimes and the publication of performance data) might also have a role in influencing boards, but detailed empirical work on these is scant.

CONCLUSIONS

Health policy debates recognize the important role of hospital boards in overseeing patient quality and safety, and a growing body of empirical research has sought to elucidate that role. This review finds a number of areas of guidance that have some empirical support, but it also exposes the relatively inchoate nature of the field. Greater theoretical and methodological development is required if we are to secure more evidence-informed governance systems and practices that can contribute to safer care.

A survey of board chairs of English hospitals shows greater attention to quality of care than among their US counterparts

There is growing international interest in the role that hospital boards of directors play in improving the quality of health care. In England the National Health Service created a program to help boards become more effective at ensuring quality. We sought to evaluate how boards at English hospitals are engaged in quality, and we conducted the first national survey of the governance practices of the chairpersons of English hospitals. The survey was completed by 132 of 171 board chairs. We compared the results to those of a survey of the chairs of US hospital boards that we published in 2010. We found that English board chairs had more expertise in quality-of-care issues and spent a greater proportion of their time on quality of care than their US counterparts. At the same time, the association in England between hospital performance on quality metrics and board engagement in quality was generally not as substantial as was evident in our earlier US survey. English board chairs tend to greatly overestimate the quality performance of their hospitals, much as their US counterparts do. Our analysis suggests that there is room for improvement in both countries to bolster board expertise and focus on key quality metrics, and to hold managers accountable for the delivery of safe, effective health care.

Governance of quality of care: a qualitative study of health service boards in Victoria, Australia

Objectives

To describe the engagement of health service boards with quality-of-care issues and to identify factors that influence boards’ activities in this area.

Methods

We conducted semistructured interviews with 35 board members and executives from 13 public health services in Victoria, Australia. Interviews focused on the role currently played by boards in overseeing quality of care. We also elicited interviewees’ perceptions of factors that have influenced their current approach to governance in this area. Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes from interview transcripts.

Results

Virtually all interviewees believed boards had substantial opportunities to influence the quality of care delivered within the service, chiefly through setting priorities, monitoring progress, holding staff to account and shaping culture. Perceived barriers to leveraging this influence included insufficient resources, gaps in skills and experience among board members, inadequate information on performance and regulatory requirements that miss the mark. Interviewees converged on four enablers of more effective quality governance: stronger regional collaborations; more tailored board training on quality issues; smarter use of reporting and accreditation requirements; and better access to data that was reliable, longitudinal and allowed for benchmarking against peer organisations.

Conclusions

Although health service boards are eager to establish quality of care as a governance priority, several obstacles are blocking progress. The result is a gap between the rhetoric of quality governance and the reality of month-to-month activities at the board level. The imperative for effective board-level engagement in this area cannot be met until these barriers are addressed.

The high-reliability pediatric intensive care unit

In health care, reliability is the measurable capability of a process, procedure, or health service to perform its intended function in the required time under actual or existing conditions (as opposed to the ideal circumstances under which they are often studied). This article outlines the current state of reliability in a clinical context, discusses general principles of reliability, and explores the characteristics of high-reliability organizations as a desirable future state for pediatric critical care.

The role of boards in clinical governance: activities and attitudes among members of public health service boards in Victoria

Objectives To determine the nature and extent of governance activities by health service boards in relation to quality and safety of care and to gauge the expertise and perspectives of board members in this area. Methods This study used an online and postal survey of the Board Chair, Quality Committee Chair and two randomly selected members from the boards of all 85 health services in Victoria. Seventy percent (233/332) of members surveyed responded and 96% (82/85) of boards had at least one member respond. Results Most boards had quality performance as a standing item on meeting agendas (79%) and reviewed data on medication errors and hospital-acquired infections at least quarterly (77%). Fewer boards benchmarked their service’s quality performance against external comparators (50%) or offered board members formal training on quality (53%). Eighty-two percent of board members identified quality as a top priority for board oversight, yet members generally considered their boards to be a relatively minor force in shaping the quality of care. There was a positive correlation between the size of health services (total budget, inpatient separations) and their board’s level of engagement in quality-related activities. Ninety percent of board members indicated that additional training in quality and safety would be ‘moderately useful’ or ‘very useful’. Almost every respondent believed the overall quality of care their service delivered was as good as, or better than, the typical Victorian health service. Conclusions Collectively, health service boards are engaged in an impressive range of clinical governance activities. However, the extent of engagement is uneven across boards, certain knowledge deficits are evident and there was wide agreement among board members that further training in quality-related issues would be useful. What is known about the topic? There is an emerging international consensus that effective board leadership is a vital element of high-quality healthcare. In Australia, new National Health Standards require all public health service boards to have a ‘system of governance that actively manages patient safety and quality risks’. What does this paper add? Our survey of all public health service Boards in Victoria found that, overall, boards are engaged in an impressive range of clinical governance activities. However, tensions are evident. First, whereas some boards are strongly engaged in clinical governance, others report relatively little activity. Second, despite 8 in 10 members rating quality as a top board priority, few members regarded boards as influential players in determining it. Third, although members regarded their boards as having strong expertise in quality, there were signs of knowledge limitations, including: near consensus that (additional) training would be useful; unfamiliarity with key national quality documents; and overly optimistic beliefs about quality performance. What are the implications for practitioners? There is scope to improve board expertise in clinical governance through tailored training programs. Better board reporting would help to address the concern of some board members that they are drowning in data yet thirsty for meaningful information. Finally, standardised frameworks for benchmarking internal quality data against external measures would help boards to assess the performance of their own health service and identify opportunities for improvement.

Patient safety and quality improvement: an overview of QI

It is important for pediatric providers to be involved in quality improvement (QI) activities to improve children’s health outcomes.• The Model for Improvement asks several key questions related to a process, then uses Plan-Do-Study-Act(PDSA) cycles to implement, test, and spread changes.• Lean and Six Sigma methodologies can improve quality by increasing workflow efficiency and decreasing variation.• Root cause analysis (RCA) is a retrospective quality tool that helps determine factors contributing to errors and adverse events, so that improvements can be implemented.• Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) isa prospective quality tool that anticipates system vulnerabilities and helps develop risk reduction strategies.• Evidence-based interventions, such as best-practice guidelines, promote standardization and reduce errors and adverse events, especially in high-risk health-care settings.• Team training can improve communication and situational awareness to create a safer health-care environment.

A cross-sectional study to identify organisational processes associated with nurse-reported quality and patient safety

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to identify organisational processes and structures that are associated with nurse-reported patient safety and quality of nursing.

DESIGN

This is an observational cross-sectional study using survey methods.

SETTING

Respondents from 31 Norwegian hospitals with more than 85 beds were included in the survey.

PARTICIPANTS

All registered nurses working in direct patient care in a position of 20% or more were invited to answer the survey. In this study, 3618 nurses from surgical and medical wards responded (response rate 58.9). Nurses' practice environment was defined as organisational processes and measured by the Nursing Work Index Revised and items from Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Nurses' assessments of patient safety, quality of nursing, confidence in how their patients manage after discharge and frequency of adverse events were used as outcome measures.

RESULTS

Quality system, nurse-physician relation, patient safety management and staff adequacy were process measures associated with nurse-reported work-related and patient-related outcomes, but we found no associations with nurse participation, education and career and ward leadership. Most organisational structures were non-significant in the multilevel model except for nurses' affiliations to medical department and hospital type.

CONCLUSIONS

Organisational structures may have minor impact on how nurses perceive work-related and patient-related outcomes, but the findings in this study indicate that there is a considerable potential to address organisational design in improvement of patient safety and quality of care.

Board quality scorecards: measuring improvement

Board accountability for quality and patient safety is widely accepted but the science for how to measure it is immature, and differences between measuring performance, identifying hazards, and monitoring progress are often misunderstood. Hospital leaders often provide scorecards to assist boards with their oversight role yet, in the absence of national standards, little evidence exists regarding which measures are valid and useful to boards to assess quality improvement. The authors describe results of a cross-sectional board study, identifying the measures used to monitor quality. The measures varied widely and many were of uncertain validity, generally identifying hazards rather than measuring rates. This article identifies some important policy implications regarding boards' oversight of quality and acknowledges existing limits to how we can measure quality and safety progress on the national or hospital level. If boards and their hospitals are to monitor progress in improving quality, they need more valid outcome measures.

Restructuring within an academic health center to support quality and safety: the development of the Center for Quality and Safety at the Massachusetts General Hospital

Recent focus on the need to improve the quality and safety of health care has created new challenges for academic health centers (AHCs). Whereas previously quality was largely assumed, today it is increasingly quantifiable and requires organized systems for improvement. Traditional structures and cultures within AHCs, although well suited to the tripartite missions of teaching, research, and clinical care, are not easily adaptable to the tasks of measuring, reporting, and improving quality. Here, the authors use a case study of Massachusetts General Hospital's efforts to restructure quality and safety to illustrate the value of beginning with a focus on organizational culture, using a systematic process of engaging clinical leadership, developing an organizational framework dependent on proven business principles, leveraging focus events, and maintaining executive dedication to execution of the initiative. The case provides a generalizable example for AHCs of how applying explicit management design can foster robust organizational change with relatively modest incremental financial resources.

Development of a measure of patient safety event learning responses

OBJECTIVE

To define patient safety event (PSE) learning response and to provide preliminary validation of a measure of PSE learning response.

DATA SOURCES

Ten focus groups with front-line staff and managers, an expert panel, and cross-sectional survey data from patient safety officers in 54 general acute hospitals.

STUDY DESIGN

A mixed methods study to define a measure of learning responses to patient safety failures that is rooted in theory, expert knowledge, and organizational practice realities.

EXTRACTION METHODS

Learning response items developed from the literature were modified and validated in front-line staff and manager focus groups and by an expert panel and second group of external experts. Actual learning responses gleaned from survey data were examined using exploratory factor analyses and reliability analysis.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Unique learning response items were identified for minor, moderate, major events, and major near misses by an expert panel. A two-factor model of major event learning response was identified (factor 1=event analysis, factor 2=dissemination/communication of learnings). Organizations engage in greater learning responses following major events than less severe events and, for major events, organizations engage in more factor 1 responses than factor 2 learning responses.

CONCLUSIONS

Eleven to 13 items can measure learning responses to PSEs of differing severity. The items are feasible, grounded in theory, and reflect expert opinion as well as practice setting realities. The items have the potential for use to assess current practice in organizations and set future improvement goals.

Patient safety: Part II. Opportunities for improvement in patient safety

The quality movement in medicine has prompted a shift from a "name, shame, blame" approach to medical errors to one in which each error is regarded as an opportunity to prevent future patient harm. This new culture of patient safety requires the involvement of all members of the health care team and learned skill sets related to quality improvement. A root cause analysis identifies the sources of medical errors, allowing system changes that reduce the risk. In large organizations, sentinel events and signals prompt chart reviews and reduce the reliance on voluntary reporting. Failure mode analysis prompts the development of safety nets in the case of a system failure. The second part of this two-part series on patient safety examines how the culture of patient safety is taught, how medical errors and threats to patient safety can be identified, and how engineering tools can be used to improve patient care. It also examines efforts to measure clinical effectiveness and outcomes in the practice of medicine.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After completing this learning activity, participants should be able to improve patient safety through an understanding of both the beneficial and adverse consequences of quality reporting, apply safety engineering tools to the practice of dermatology, and be able to establish a quality improvement plan for a dermatologic practice.

Model for improvement - Part Two: Measurement and feedback for quality improvement efforts

Measurement and feedback are fundamental to quality improvement. There is a knowledge gap among health care professionals in knowing how to measure the impact of their quality improvement projects and how to use these data to improve care. This article presents a pragmatic approach to measurement and feedback for quality improvement efforts in local health care settings, such as hospitals or clinical practices. The authors include evidence-based strategies from health care and other industries, augmented with practical examples from the authors' collective years of experience designing measurement and feedback strategies.