Why has the safety and quality movement been slow to improve care?

Enabling clinician engagement in safety and quality improvement

Objective The aim of this study was to determine how individual, group and leadership factors influence clinician engagement in safety and quality improvement work. Methods The study was conducted through an online questionnaire. Participants were alumni of Australian healthcare safety and quality improvement capability development programs. Relationships between five factors influencing clinicians' perception of value for time and effort in safety and quality improvement work were explored. The five factors were psychological empowerment; task cohesion; social cohesion; transformational leadership behaviour of project leads and sponsors; and value for time and effort for self and patients. Correlation and regression analyses were used to explore the aspects of the hypothesised model. Moderation and mediation analysis was then used to explore the relationships further. Structural equation modelling was used to determine the path model. Results All factors showed strong positive correlations, with psychological empowerment and transformational leadership having the strongest relationships with perceived value for effort for self and patient. The factorial structure of measures was examined, and all indicators loaded significantly on their corresponding latent constructs and the model showed a good fit to the data. Conclusions The findings of this study suggest that the most crucial factor to clinician engagement in safety and quality improvement at the point of care is the leader's behaviour and how that influences team dynamics and individual motivation and empowerment. What is known about the topic? Healthcare organisations remain challenged regarding clinician engagement in safety and quality improvement. Although much is known about clinicians' perceptions of safety and quality, there is more to understand about what practically motivates clinicians to engage. Tapping into individual, group and leadership factors' influences on clinician engagement offers a deeper perspective. What does this paper add? This study explored the individual, group and leadership factors that drive clinician engagement. The factors include the clinician's individual motivation and empowerment to participate, the group dynamics that surround the clinician and the leadership behaviours of the team's leader. The research design allowed for greater understanding about how and to what extent these factors drive clinician engagement. The study's findings can be applied in practice in capability development activities or leadership for safety and quality improvement. What are the implications for practitioners? Rather than taking a perspective that the clinician needs to engage, this study suggests a strong onus on leadership behaviours to engage those clinicians. Focusing on the self as leader and a leader's own behaviours, as well as how those behaviours are fostering positive team dynamics and motivating and empowering individual team members, will have a great benefit on clinician engagement in safety and quality improvement. Higher clinical engagement in safety and quality improvement should translate into better value care.

Where Do Models for Change Management, Improvement and Implementation Meet? A Systematic Review of the Applications of Change Management Models in Healthcare

BACKGROUND

The increasing prioritisation of healthcare quality across the six domains of efficiency, safety, patient-centredness, effectiveness, timeliness and accessibility has given rise to accelerated change both in the uptake of initiatives and the realisation of their outcomes to meet external targets. Whilst a multitude of change management methodologies exist, their application in complex healthcare contexts remains unclear. Our review sought to establish the methodologies applied, and the nature and effectiveness of their application in the context of healthcare.

METHODS

A systematic review and narrative synthesis was undertaken. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts followed by the full-text articles that were potentially relevant against the inclusion criteria. An appraisal of methodological and reporting quality of the included studies was also conducted by two further reviewers.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies were included that reported the use of 12 change management methodologies in healthcare contexts across 10 countries. The most commonly applied methodologies were Kotter's Model (19 studies) and Lewin's Model (11 studies). Change management methodologies were applied in projects at local ward or unit level (14), institutional level (12) and system or multi-system (6) levels. The remainder of the studies provided commentary on the success of change efforts that had not utilised a change methodology with reference to change management approaches.

CONCLUSION

Change management methodologies were often used as guiding principle to underpin a change in complex healthcare contexts. The lack of prescription application of the change management methodologies was identified. Change management methodologies were valued for providing guiding principles for change that are well suited to enable methodologies to be applied in the context of complex and unique healthcare contexts, and to be used in synergy with implementation and improvement methodologies.

Organizational readiness for implementing change in acute care hospitals: An analysis of a cross-sectional, multicentre study

AIM

To assess nurse-reported organizational readiness for implementing change in acute care hospitals.

BACKGROUND

An organization's success at implementing new policies and programmes depends largely on its stakeholders' readiness for change. Organizational readiness is a multilevel, multifaceted construct associated with staffing, leadership and quality of care.

DESIGN

This is a secondary analysis of the cross-sectional multicentre "Matching Registered Nurse Services with Changing Care Demands" study.

METHODS

In 23 acute care hospitals across Switzerland, 1,833 nurses working in 124 units completed a survey between September 2015 and January 2016. Organizational readiness was measured with two subscales: "change commitment" and "change efficacy". Work environment factors were assessed using the Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index.

RESULTS

Nurses were positive about implementing change in their hospitals. Intraclass correlation was higher at the unit level than at the hospital level for both change commitment and change efficacy. Nursing foundation for quality of care and supportive leadership were positively associated with readiness, change commitment and change efficacy. However, staffing and resource adequacy was positively associated only with change efficacy. No association was found with standardized staffing.

CONCLUSION

While organizational readiness scores vary among hospitals and units, they are positively associated with supportive leadership and a foundation for quality of care. Further research should consider organizational readiness as an important factor of change and ultimately of the quality of care.

Improving Clinical Practice Using a Novel Engagement Approach: Measurement, Benchmarking and Feedback, A Longitudinal Study

BACKGROUND

Poor clinical outcomes are caused by multiple factors such as disease progression, patient behavior, and structural elements of care. One other important factor that affects outcome is the quality of care delivered by a provider at the bedside. Guidelines and pathways have been developed with the promise of advancing evidence-based practice. Yet, these alone have shown mixed results or fallen short in increasing adherence to quality of care. Thus, effective, novel tools are required for sustainable practice change and raising the quality of care.

METHODS

The study focused on benchmarking and measuring variation and improving care quality for common types of breast cancer at four sites across the United States, using a set of 12 Clinical Performance and Value(®) (CPV(®)) vignettes per site. The vignettes simulated online cases that replicate a typical visit by a patient as the tool to engage breast cancer providers and to identify and assess variation in adherence to evidence-based practice guidelines and pathways.

RESULTS

Following multiple rounds of CPV measurement, benchmarking and feedback, we found that scores had increased significantly between the baseline round and the final round (P < 0.001) overall and for all domains. By round 4 of the study, the overall score increased by 14% (P < 0.001), and the diagnosis with treatment plan domain had an increase of 12% (P < 0.001) versus baseline.

CONCLUSION

We found that serially engaging breast cancer providers with a validated clinical practice engagement and measurement tool, the CPVs, markedly increased quality scores and adherence to clinical guidelines in the simulated patients. CPVs were able to measure differences in clinical skill improvement and detect how fast improvements were made.