Making Systemwide Improvements in Health Care

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.

Better with GPs as managers? - Variation in perceptions of feedback messages, goal-clarity and performance across manager´s in Swedish primary care

BACKGROUND

Primary care in several countries is developing towards team-based and multi-professional care, requiring leadership and management capabilities at the primary care practice level. This article reports findings from a study of primary care managers in Sweden, focusing variation in performance and perceptions of feedback messages and goal-clarity, depending on managers' professional background.

METHODS

The study was designed as a cross-sectional analysis of primary care practice managers' perceptions combined with registered data on patient-reported performance. Managers perceptions was collected through a survey to all 1 327 primary care practice managers in Sweden. Data about patient-reported performance was collected from the 2021 National Patient Survey in primary care. We used bivariate (Pearson correlation) and multivariate (ordinary least square regression analysis) statistical methods to describe and analyse the possible association between managers' background, responses to survey statements and patient-reported performance.

RESULTS

Both GP and non-GP managers had positive perceptions of the quality and support of feedback messages from professional committees focusing medical quality indicators, although managers perceived that the feedback facilitated improvement work to a lower degree. Feedback from the regions as payers scored consistently lower in all dimensions, especially among GP-managers. Results from regression analysis indicate that GP-managers correlate with better patient-reported performance when controlling for selected primary care practice and managerial characteristics. A significant positive relationship with patient-reported performance was also found for female managers, a smaller size of the primary care practice and a good staffing situation of GPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Both GP and non-GP managers rated the quality and support of feedback messages from professional committees higher than feedback from regions as payers. Differences in perceptions were especially striking among GP-managers. Patient-reported performance was significantly better in primary care practices managed by GPs and female managers. Variables reflecting structural and organizational, rather than managerial, characteristics contributed with additional explanations behind the variation in patient-reported performance across primary care practices. As we cannot exclude reversed causality, the findings may reflect that GPs are more likely to accept being a manager of a primary care practice with favourable characteristics.

Quality as strategy, the evolution of co-production in the Region Jönköping health system, Sweden: a descriptive qualitative study

Background

Pursuing the vision ‘for a good life in an attractive region,’ the Region Jönköping County (RJC) in Sweden oversees public health and health-care services for its 360 000 residents. For more than three decades, RJC has applied ‘quality as strategy,’ which has included increasing involvement of patients, family and friends and citizens. This practice has evolved, coinciding with the growing recognition of co-production as a fundamental feature in health-care services. This study views co-production as an umbrella term including different methods, initiatives and organizational levels. When learning about co-production in health-care services, it can be helpful to approach it as a dynamic and reflective process.

Objective

This study aims to describe the examples of key developmental steps toward co-production as a system property and to highlight ‘lessons learned’ from a Swedish health system’s journey.

Method

This qualitative descriptive study draws on interviews with key stakeholders and on documents, such as local policy documents, project reports, meeting protocols and presentations. Co-production initiatives were defined as strategies, projects, quality improvement (QI) programs or other efforts, which included persons with patient experience and/or their next of kin (PPE). We used directed manifest content analysis to identify initiatives, timelines and methods and inductive conventional content analysis to capture lessons learned over time.

Results

The directed content analyses identified 22 co-production initiatives from 1997 until today. Methods and approaches to facilitate co-production included development of personas, storytelling, person-centered care approaches, various co-design methods, QI interventions, harnessing of PPEs in different staff roles, and PPE-driven improvement and networks. The lessons learned included the following aspects of co-production: relations and structure; micro-, meso- and macro-level approaches; attitudes and roles; drivers for development; diversity; facilitating change; new perspectives on current work; consequences; uncertainties; theories and outcomes; and regulations and frames.

Conclusions

Co-production evolved as an increasingly significant aspect of services in the RJC health system. The initiatives examined in this study provide a broad overview and understanding of some of the RJC co-production journey, illustrating a health system’s approach to co-production within a context of long-standing application of QI and microsystem theories.

The main lessons include the constancy of direction, the strategy for improvement, engaged leaders, continuous learning and development from practical experience, and the importance of relationships with national and international experts in the pursuit of system-wide health-care co-production.

How to sustainably build capacity in quality improvement within a healthcare organisation: a deep-dive, focused qualitative analysis

Background

A key characteristic of healthcare systems that deliver high quality and cost performance in a sustainable way is a systematic approach to capacity and capability building for quality improvement. The aim of this research was to explore the factors that lead to successful implementation of a program of quality improvement projects and a capacity and capability building program that facilitates or support these.

Methods

Between July 2018 and February 2020, the Southern Adelaide Local Health Network (SALHN), a network of health services in Adelaide, South Australia, conducted three capability-oriented capacity building programs that incorporated 82 longstanding individual quality improvement projects. Qualitative analysis of data collected from interviews of 19 project participants and four SALHN Improvement Faculty members and ethnographic observations of seven project team meetings were conducted.

Results

We found four interacting components that lead to successful implementation of quality improvement projects and the overall program that facilitates or support these: an agreed and robust quality improvement methodology, a skilled faculty to assist improvement teams, active involvement of leadership and management, and a deep understanding that teams matter. A strong safety culture is not necessarily a pre-requisite for quality improvement gains to be made; indeed, undertaking quality improvement activities can contribute to an improved safety culture. For most project participants in the program, the time commitment for projects was significant and, at times, maintaining momentum was a challenge.

Conclusions

Healthcare systems that wish to deliver high quality and cost performance in a sustainable way should consider embedding the four identified components into their quality improvement capacity and capability building strategy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06598-8.

Conditions and barriers for quality improvement work: a qualitative study of how professionals and health centre managers experience audit and feedback practices in Swedish primary care

Background

High quality primary care is expected to be the basis of many health care systems. Expectations on primary care are rising as societies age and the burden of chronic disease grows. To stimulate adherence to guidelines and quality improvement, audit and feedback to professionals is often used, but the effects vary. Even with carefully designed audit and feedback practices, barriers related to contextual conditions may prevent quality improvement efforts. The purpose of this study was to explore how professionals and health centre managers in Swedish primary care experience existing forms of audit and feedback, and conditions and barriers for quality improvement, and to explore views on the future use of clinical performance data for quality improvement.

Methods

We used an explorative qualitative design. Focus groups were conducted with health centre managers, physicians and other health professionals at seven health centres. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed using qualitative content analysis.

Results

Four different types of audit and feedback that regularly occurred at the health centres were identified. The main part of the audit and feedback was “external”, from the regional purchasers and funders, and from the owners of the health centres. This audit and feedback focused on non-clinical measures such as revenues, utilisation of resources, and the volume of production. The participants in our study did not perceive that existing audit and feedback practices contributed to improved quality in general. This, along with lack of time for quality improvement, lack of autonomy and lack of quality improvement initiatives at the system (macro) level, were considered barriers to quality improvement at the health centres.

Conclusions

Professionals and health centre managers did not experience audit and feedback practices and existing conditions in Swedish primary care as supportive of quality improvement work. From a professional perspective, audit and feedback with a focus on clinical measures, as well as autonomy for professionals, are necessary to create motivation and space for quality improvement work. Such initiatives also need to be supported by quality improvement efforts at the system (macro) level, which favour transformation to a primary care based system.

Understanding how and why audits work in improving the quality of hospital care: A systematic realist review

BACKGROUND

Several types of audits have been used to promote quality improvement (QI) in hospital care. However, in-depth studies into the mechanisms responsible for the effectiveness of audits in a given context is scarce. We sought to understand the mechanisms and contextual factors that determine why audits might, or might not, lead to improved quality of hospital care.

METHODS

A realist review was conducted to systematically search and synthesise the literature on audits. Data from individual papers were synthesised by coding, iteratively testing and supplementing initial programme theories, and refining these theories into a set of context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOcs).

RESULTS

From our synthesis of 85 papers, seven CMOcs were identified that explain how audits work: (1) externally initiated audits create QI awareness although their impact on improvement diminishes over time; (2) a sense of urgency felt by healthcare professionals triggers engagement with an audit; (3) champions are vital for an audit to be perceived by healthcare professionals as worth the effort; (4) bottom-up initiated audits are more likely to bring about sustained change; (5) knowledge-sharing within externally mandated audits triggers participation by healthcare professionals; (6) audit data support healthcare professionals in raising issues in their dialogues with those in leadership positions; and (7) audits legitimise the provision of feedback to colleagues, which flattens the perceived hierarchy and encourages constructive collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

This realist review has identified seven CMOcs that should be taken into account when seeking to optimise the design and usage of audits. These CMOcs can provide policy makers and practice leaders with an adequate conceptual grounding to design contextually sensitive audits in diverse settings and advance the audit research agenda for various contexts.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42016039882.

Improvement work in mental healthcare: an example from Region Jönköping County, Sweden

Region Jönköping County (RJC) in Sweden is a healthcare system that is characterised by sustainable work with quality in healthcare and long-term system-wide improvement. This article describes important factors behind the improvement work in RJC, and how the improvement methods and initiatives have been adopted also in mental healthcare. For example, patients otherwise eligible for admission to a psychiatric department were treated at home after introduction of home treatment teams. Patient satisfaction was high and the number of visits to the emergency department, hospital admissions and hospital stay decreased.

Combining Integration of Care and a Population Health Approach: A Scoping Review of Redesign Strategies and Interventions, and their Impact

Background and aim:

Many health systems attempt to develop integrated and population health-oriented systems of care, but knowledge of strategies and interventions to support this effort is lacking. We aimed to identify specific redesign strategies and interventions, and to present evidence of their effectiveness.

Method:

A modified scoping review process was carried out. Fifteen relevant examples of integrated care organizations that incorporated a broad population health approach in countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development described in 57 articles and reports were included in analysis.

Results:

Seven key redesign strategies and multiple redesign interventions have been identified and are described. Most commonly used redesign strategies included focusing on health and wellness, embracing intersectoral action and partnerships, addressing health in vulnerable groups, and addressing a wide range of determinants of health, including making improvements in health services. Redesign interventions included creative and innovative ways of addressing clinical and non-clinical issues such as establishing housing surgeries in primary care, establlishing vast social and provider networks to support patients with complex needs and also broadening of the scope of services, workforce redesign and other. Potential reductions in the utilization of care and costs could be derived by the wider adoption of these strategies and interventions.

Conclusion:

Development of integrated and population health-oriented systems of care requires the redesign of how services are organized and delivered, and how organizations and care systems operate. Combining integration of care with the population health approach can be supported by a set of cohesive strategies and interventions aimed at preventing disease, addressing social determinants of health and improving health equity at both population- and individual-level.

Sustaining improvement? The 20-year Jönköping quality improvement program revisited

BACKGROUND

There is scarce evidence of organization-wide and sustained impact of quality improvement (QI) programs in health care. For 20 years, the Jönköping County Council's (Sweden) ambitious program has attracted attention from practitioners and researchers alike.

METHODS

This is a follow-up case of a 2006 study of Jönköping's improvement program, triangulating data from 20 semi-structured interviews, observation and secondary analysis of internal performance data.

RESULTS

In 2010, clinical outcomes had clearly improved in 2 departments (pediatrics, intensive care), while process improvements were evident in many departments. In an overall index of the 20 Swedish county councils' performance, Jönköping had improved its ranking since 2006 to lead in 2010. Five key issues shaped Jönköping's improvement program since 2006: a rigorously managed succession of chief executive officer; adept management of a changing external context; clear strategic direction relating to integration; a broadened conceptualization of "quality" (incorporating clinical effectiveness, patient safety, and patient experience); and continuing investment in QI education and research. Physician involvement in formal QI initiatives had increased since 2006 but remained a challenge in 2010. A new clinical information system was being deployed but had not yet met expectations.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that ambitious approaches can carry health care organizations beyond the sustainability threshold.

What Is Best for Esther? Building Improvement Coaching Capacity With and for Users in Health and Social Care--A Case Study

While coaching and customer involvement can enhance the improvement of health and social care, many organizations struggle to develop their improvement capability; it is unclear how best to accomplish this. We examined one attempt at training improvement coaches. The program, set in the Esther Network for integrated care in rural Jönköping County, Sweden, included eight 1-day sessions spanning 7 months in 2011. A senior citizen joined the faculty in all training sessions. Aiming to discern which elements in the program were essential for assuming the role of improvement coach, we used a case-study design with a qualitative approach. Our focus group interviews included 17 informants: 11 coaches, 3 faculty members, and 3 senior citizens. We performed manifest content analysis of the interview data. Creating will, ideas, execution, and sustainability emerged as crucial elements. These elements were promoted by customer focus--embodied by the senior citizen trainer--shared values and a solution-focused approach, by the supportive coach network and by participants' expanded systems understanding. These elements emerged as more important than specific improvement tools and are worth considering also elsewhere when seeking to develop improvement capability in health and social care organizations.

Supporting colleagues to improve care: educating for quality improvement

Clinicians at the front line of healthcare delivery are very well positioned to identify and improve the system in which they work. Training curricula, however, have not always equipped them with the skills or knowledge to implement change. This article looks at educational approaches to support clinicians to be actively involved with quality improvement (QI). It looks at the role of doctors in postgraduate training (DrPGT) and their educational supervisors and builds on the topics discussed throughout the 'EQUIPPED' article series. Factors for success of a QI education programme and practical ideas for overcoming barriers to supporting clinicians in QI are discussed. We present examples of educational initiatives and a framework for evaluating such programmes, and we examine the role of faculty development to help inspire and support colleagues to improve care.

Co-production within health and social care – the implications for Wales?

Purpose

– It is well recognised that individuals have much to contribute to the care that they receive, with attendant benefits on outcomes and reduction in cost. The recognition of individuals who access care services as interdependent citizens embedded in both formal and informal support networks is a shift that acknowledges their active role as partners in management of their own care and in service innovation and development. The purpose of this paper is therefore to explore and illustrate some of the domains of co-production.

Design/methodology/approach

– In this paper, the authors review the literature, both peer-reviewed and professional, in order to provide a broad and contemporary commentary on this emergent approach. This literature is critically summarised and presented along with a narrative that discusses the context in Wales, where the authors are based. The approach to this paper is to bring together existing knowledge and also propose potential avenues for further research and practise development.

Findings

– There is a diverse literature on this topic and the application of co-production appears potentially transformational within health and social care. Implementation of the principles of co-production has the potential to improve health and social care services in a range of settings. Real changes in outcomes and experience and reduction in societal cost can be achieved by making the people of Wales active partners in the design and delivery of their own health and social care.

Originality/value

– This review offers a readily accessible commentary on co-production, which may be of value to a wide range of professional groups and policy makers. This paper also reflects an original attempt to summarise knowledge and propose further areas for work. Most importantly, this paper offers a start point for co-production to become a reality for service provision with all the attendant benefits that will arise from this development.

Cluster-randomized trial to evaluate the effects of a quality improvement program on management of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: The European Quality Improvement Programme for Acute Coronary Syndromes (EQUIP-ACS)

BACKGROUND

Registries have shown that quality of care for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) often falls below the standards recommended in professional guidelines. Quality improvement (QI) is a strategy to improve standards of clinical care for patients, but the efficacy of QI for ACS has not been tested in randomized trials.

METHODS

We undertook a prospective, cluster-randomized, multicenter, multinational study to evaluate the efficacy of a QI program for ACS. Participating centers collected data on consecutive admissions for non-ST-elevation ACS for 4 months before the QI intervention and 3 months after. Thirty-eight hospitals in France, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom were randomized to receive the QI program or not, 19 in each group. We measured 8 in-hospital quality indicators (risk stratification, coronary angiography, anticoagulation, β-blockers, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and clopidogrel loading and maintenance) before and after the intervention and compared composite changes between the QI and non-QI groups.

RESULTS

A total of 2604 patients were enrolled. The absolute overall change in use of quality indicators in the QI group was 8.5% compared with 0.8% in the non-QI group (odds ratio for achieving a quality indicator in QI versus non-QI 1.66, 95% CI 1.43-1.94; P < .001). The main changes were observed in the use of risk stratification and clopidogrel loading dose.

CONCLUSIONS

The QI strategy resulted in a significant improvement in the quality indicators measured. This type of QI intervention can lead to useful changes in health care practice for ACS in a wide range of settings.

Defining a high performance healthcare organisation

Composite measures of performance are insufficient on their own