Bridging existing governance gaps: five evidence-based actions that boards can take to pursue high quality care

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.

Overcoming Obstacles to Develop High-Performance Teams Involving Physician in Health Care Organizations

Many health care organizations struggle and often do not succeed to be high-performance organizations that are not only efficient and effective but also enjoyable places to work. This review focuses on the physician and organizational roles in limiting achievement of a high-performance team in health care organizations. Ten dimensions were constructed and a number of competencies and metrics were highlighted to overcome the failures to: (i) Ensure that the goals, purpose, mission and vision are clearly defined; (ii) establish a supportive organizational structure that encourages high performance of teams; (iii) ensure outstanding physician leadership, performance, goal attainment; and (iv) recognize that medical team leaders are vulnerable to the abuses of personal power or may create a culture of intimidation/fear and a toxic work culture; (v) select a good team and team members—team members who like to work in teams or are willing and able to learn how to work in a team and ensure a well-balanced team composition; (vi) establish optimal team composition, individual roles and dynamics, and clear roles for members of the team; (vii) establish psychological safe environment for team members; (viii) address and resolve interpersonal conflicts in teams; (xi) ensure good health and well-being of the medical staff; (x) ensure physician engagement with the organization. Addressing each of these dimensions with the specific solutions outlined should overcome the constraints to achieving high-performance teams for physicians in health care organizations.

Health boards' governance of quality and risk: quality improvement agenda for the board

Purpose

This study explores key governance, leadership and management activities that have impact on quality, risk and safety within Australian healthcare organisations.

Design/methodology/approach

Current non-executive directors (n = 12) of public and private health boards were interviewed about contemporary approaches to fiduciary and corporate responsibilities for quality assurance and improvement outcomes in the context of risk and safety management for patient care. Verbatim transcripts were subjected to thematic analysis triangulated with Leximancer-based text mining.

Findings

Boards operate in a strong legislative, healthcare standards and normative environment of quality and risk management. Support and influence that create a positive quality and risk management culture within the organisation, actions that disseminate quality and risk broadly and at depth for all levels, and implementation and sustained development of quality and risk systems that report on and contain risk were critical tasks for boards and their directors.

Practical implications

Findings from this study may provide health directors with key quality and risk management agenda points to expand or deepen the impact of governance around health facilities' quality and risk management.

Originality/value

This study has identified key governance activities and responsibilities where boards demonstrate that they add value in terms of potential improvement to hospital and health service quality care outcomes. The demonstrable influence identified makes an important contribution to our understanding of healthcare governance.

Implementation of the Nursing Services Management Model in 16 hospitals

OBJECTIVES

to describe the main aspects and relevant results of the implementation of the Nursing Services Management Model in hospitals managed by social health organization, from 1998 to 2018.

METHODS

experience report of the model implemented in 16 hospitals in the state of São Paulo, Brazil.

RESULTS

the actions and monitoring of the implementation were based on protocols considering: management model and structure of the nursing service in hospitals; care process and main nursing care results; and people development.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

the implementation of methods that ensure the well-being of nursing professionals is directly related to effective care, in which the practice is driven by quality and autonomy. Promoting a culture of care excellence, at different levels of management and care, has generated better expectations and motivation. It was found that the commitment of managers, by providing resources, resulted in improvements in the quality of nursing services.

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.