A simple framework for complex system improvement

Protocol paper for an implementation science approach to promoting colorectal cancer screening in Federally Qualified Health Center clinics: A stepped-wedge, multilevel intervention trial

Background

Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Despite the Healthy People 2030 goal of 70.5%, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) are suboptimal at about 40%. The Colorectal Cancer Awareness, Research, Education and Screening-Rural Expansion, Access, and Capacity for Health (CARES-REACH) study seeks to address this disparity and accelerate the adoption and utilization of effective, evidence-based CRC screening practices. This paper describes the CARES-REACH study design and implementation methods.

Methods

Informed by a community-based participatory research (CBPR) framework and enriched by implementation science approaches, CARES-REACH features a stepped wedge design with extension for maintenance to support an implementation strategy focused on multiple levels: organizational, provider, and patient levels that entail processes to boost initial and repeat screening among average risk and age-eligible adults. This multilevel study entails the implementation of a core set of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) that include low literacy patient education (English, Spanish, and Haitian Creole language); provider education, system-wide electronic medical record (EMR) tools including provider prompts and patient reminders, FIT (fecal immunochemical test) kit distribution, plus an organization-wide cancer control champion who motivates providers, coaches and navigates patients, and monitors system-wide CRC screening activities.

Trial registration

NCT04464668.

Developing a Sustainable Quality Improvement Program in an Academic Center: The Experience of an Adolescent Unit

Introduction

Successful quality improvement (QI) efforts use a comprehensive, institutional QI framework and professional development, but literature describing implementing QI frameworks in Adolescent Medicine practices is sparse. We aimed to implement and increase the number of formally structured QI projects (primary aim) and the number of projects achieving a centerline (CL) shift (secondary aim) in our hospital's Adolescent Medicine Clinic.

Methods

We used formal QI methodology to improve health outcomes by increasing the number of faculty with formalized QI education, creating interdisciplinary QI teams, and improving staff motivation. QI education was mandatory for Adolescent Medicine fellows and pediatric residents and encouraged for faculty and staff. The Divisional QI leadership team attended monthly meetings to review key driver diagrams, run and control charts, and receive intervention updates. All providers and staff received monthly updates, and the Hospital Quality and Safety Committee received biannual updates. We used run charts to share progress with primary and secondary aims.

Results

Since Q3 2014, the Adolescent Medicine team consistently achieved the primary aim of having 5 active projects in process, with 9 projects from Q1 2018-Q4 2020. For the secondary aim, a target of 50% of active QI projects attaining a sustained centerline shift was achieved in Q2 2018 and maintained in 16 of 20 quarters since.

Conclusions

Clinicians can use QI methodology to improve health outcomes while facilitating professional development. For this initiative to succeed, institutional leadership must provide an infrastructure prioritizing meaningful QI involvement.

Health System Performance and Resilience in Times of Crisis: An Adapted Conceptual Framework

With the COVID-19 pandemic, the notion of health system (HS) performance has been discussed, and the notion of resilience has become increasingly important. Lacking a recognised framework that measures the performance of HSs throughout a crisis, i.e., one that explicitly includes time as a key aspect, we examined the literature about conceptual frameworks for measuring the performance and the resilience of HSs. This review highlighted a significant diversity among 18 distinct HS performance frameworks and 13 distinct HS resilience frameworks. On this basis, we developed a model that integrates the WHO's widely recognised six building block framework in a novel approach derived from the European Observatory on HSs and Policies. The resulting framework adapts the building blocks to the different stages of a crisis, thereby allowing for a comprehensive assessment of an entire health system's performance throughout the crisis's duration, while also considering the key aspect of resilience. For a more pragmatic use of this framework in the future, indicators will be developed as a next step.

Continuous quality improvement in peritoneal dialysis: Your questions answered

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) uptake around the globe has steadily increased over the last several decades as a viable alternative to haemodialysis. Continued success of this technique for patients is contingent on the application of continuous quality improvement (CQI) principles in PD practice which can improve patient outcomes and in turn lead to more successful PD programmes worldwide. In this installation of 'Your Questions Answered', we will outline an approach to quality improvement initiatives and examine the importance of CQI principles in PD practice. We will also highlight common pitfalls and provide strategies to identify potential targets for improvement within your PD programme.

Learning from the implementation of a quality improvement intervention in Australian general practice: a qualitative analysis of participants views of a CVD preventive care project

Background

Quality improvement collaborative projects aim to reduce gaps in clinical care provided in the healthcare system. This study evaluated the experience of key participants from a Quality Improvement Program (QPulse) that focussed on cardiovascular disease assessment and management. The study goal was to identify critical barriers and factors enabling the implementation of a quality improvement framework in Australian general practice.

Methods

This qualitative study examined in-depth semi-structured interviews with nineteen purposively-selected participants of the QPulse project. Interviewees were from General Practices and the local supporting organisation, a Primary Health Network. Interviews were analysed thematically using the Complex Systems Improvement framework, focusing on five domains: strategy, culture, structure, workforce and technology.

Results

Despite reported engagement with QPulse objectives to improve cardiovascular preventive care, implementation barriers associated with this program were considerable for all interviewees. Adoption of the quality improvement process was reliant on designated leadership, aligned practice culture, organised systems for clear communication, tailored education and utilisation of clinical audit and review processes. Rather than practice size and location, practice culture and governance alignment to quality improvement predicted successful implementation. Financial incentives for both general practice and the Primary Health Network were also identified as prerequisites for systematised quality improvement projects in the future, along with individualised support and education for each general practice. Technology was both an enabler and a barrier, and the Primary Health Network was seen as key to assisting the successful utilisation of the available tools.

Conclusions

Implementation of Quality Improvement programs remains a potential tool for achieving better health outcomes in General Practice. However, enablers such as financial incentives, individualised education and support provided via a supporting organisation, and IT tools and support are crucial if the full potential of Quality Improvement programs are to be realised in the Australian healthcare setting.

Trial registration

ACTRN12615000108516, UTN U1111-1163–7995.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01692-0.

Developing consensus for definitions of key veterinary-specific quality improvement (QI) terms using an eDelphi-study method

BACKGROUND

Quality improvement (QI) methods are a continuous process of iterative tests to improve the quality of a service or product. Using common language has been linked to the successful implementation of QI in human healthcare. This study aimed to assimilate and achieve consensus on veterinary-specific definitions for terms associated with quality care and QI methods in UK veterinary practice.

METHODS

A four-round modified eDelphi process with a panel of 50 UK veterinary practice stakeholders was used to generate consensus. The panel selected or suggested the definition they best felt 'fitted' each term. Consensus was reached if there was >70% agreement, and terms were eliminated if there was <15% selection.

RESULTS

Thirty-one panellists completed all three rounds of eDelphi; eight participants completed an optional feedback round. From 14 terms, 10 reached consensus, leaving four unresolved definitions.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of terms reached consensus; 90% were new or amended definitions proposed by panel members. Utilising plain English refined by stakeholders will allow successful implementation of QI in veterinary healthcare. Not all terms achieved consensus, highlighting a need for further research to enable successful integration of QI principles as seen in human healthcare.

Development and evaluation of a quality improvement framework for healthcare

OBJECTIVE

Develop and evaluate a framework for quality improvement which will provide a common approach, terminology and greater likelihood of success in achieving demonstrable and sustained improvement.

DESIGN

Descriptive with mixed methods evaluation.

SETTING

Tertiary care academic hospital in Ottawa, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Students enrolled in the Quality and Patient Safety Leadership Executive Program at the local university.

METHODS

The quality improvement (QI) framework was developed though comparison and coding of key strengths across four commonly applied quality improvement frameworks. Effectiveness of the framework was evaluated through a satisfaction survey of students who were taught the framework, and independent assessment of student improvement initiatives that followed the QI Framework versus initiatives from a prior year who did not.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Acceptability and effectiveness of the QI Framework.

RESULTS

All participants found the QI Framework to be useful and easy to follow. Independent evaluation of improvement initiatives following the QI Framework, as compared to those that did not, scored higher (95% CI: 3.0 ± 0.49) than the projects completed without the QI Framework (95% CI: 2.2 ± 0.30), P value < 0.01. Scores were higher for cohort 2017/18 in all criteria except scaling and spreading, in which there was no change (2015/16 95% CI: 1.2 ± 0.24, 2017/18 95% CI: 1.2 ± 0.38).

CONCLUSIONS

The method we have developed is acceptable and helpful to users, and overall application resulted in higher quality initiatives. We believe this method, which we have branded as The Ottawa Hospital Innovation Framework, can be beneficial in healthcare settings for a variety of change initiatives.

Assessing receptiveness to change among primary healthcare providers by adopting the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR)

BACKGROUND

Amid the current burden of non-communicable (NCD) diseases in Malaysia, there is a growing demand for more efficient service delivery of primary healthcare. A complex intervention is proposed to improve NCD management in Malaysia. This exploratory study aimed to assess primary healthcare providers' receptiveness towards change prior to implementation of the proposed complex intervention.

METHOD

This study was conducted using an exploratory qualitative approach on purposely selected healthcare providers at primary healthcare clinics. Twenty focus group discussions and three in-depth interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. Consent was obtained prior to interviews and for audio-recordings. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a framework comprised of five major domains promoting implementation theory development and verification across multiple contexts.

RESULTS

The study revealed via CFIR that most primary healthcare providers were receptive towards any proposed changes or intervention for the betterment of NCD care management. However, many challenges were outlined across four CFIR domains-intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, and individual characteristics-that included perceived barriers to implementation. Perception of issues that triggered proposed changes reflected the current situation, including existing facilitating aspects that can support the implementation of any future intervention. The importance of strengthening the primary healthcare delivery system was also expressed.

CONCLUSION

Understanding existing situations faced at the primary healthcare setting is imperative prior to implementation of any intervention. Healthcare providers' receptiveness to change was explored, and using CFIR framework, challenges or perceived barriers among healthcare providers were identified. CFIR was able to outline the clinics' setting, individual behaviour and external agency factors that have direct impact to the organisation. These are important indicators in ensuring feasibility, effectiveness and sustainability of any intervention, as well as future scalability considerations.

The stipulation-stimulation spiral: A model of system change

This paper proposes a general model, based on what is known about the nature of (complex) systems, of how systems-in particular, health care systems-respond to attempted change. Inferences are drawn from a critical literature review and reinterpretation of two primary studies. The two fundamental system-change approaches are "stipulation" and "stimulation": stip(ulation) attempts to elicit a specific response from the system; stim(ulation) encourages the system to generate diverse responses. Each has a unique strength: stip's is precision, the ability to directly impact the desired outcome and only that outcome; stim's is resonance, the ability to take advantage of behavior already present within the system. Each approach's inherent strength is its complement's inherent weakness; thus, stip and stim often clash if attempted simultaneously but can reinforce each other if applied in alternation. Opposite patterns (the "stip-stim spiral" vs "stip-stim stalemate") are observed to underpin successful vs failed system change: The crucial difference is whether decision-makers respond to a need for precision/resonance by strengthening the appropriate approach (stipulation/stimulation, respectively), or merely by weakening its complement. With further validation, the model has the potential to yield a more fundamental understanding of why system-change efforts fail and how they can succeed.

Application of quality improvement approaches in health-care settings to reduce missed opportunities for childhood vaccination: a scoping review

Missed opportunities for vaccination (MOV) is a poor reflection of the quality of care for children attending health facilities. It also contributes to a reduction in overall immunization coverage. Although there is a growing interest in the use of quality improvement (QI) in complex health systems to improve health outcomes, the degree to which this approach has been used to address MOV is poorly understood. We conducted a scoping review using Arksey and O'Malley's framework to investigate the extent to which QI has been used in health facilities to reduce MOV. The review followed five stages as follows: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying the relevant studies; (3) selecting the studies; (4) charting data; and (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting results. The search strategy included electronic databases and gray literature. A total of 12 literatures on QI projects focused on addressing MOV were identified. Eleven were published manuscripts, and one was a conference presentation. All the QI projects published were conducted in the United States and majority were between 2014 and 2018. In these projects, 45 change ideas targeting providers, clients, and health system were used. This study generated important evidence on the use of QI in health facilities to reduce MOV. In addition, the result suggests that there is a growing interest in the use of this approach to address MOV in recent years. However, no literature was found in low- and middle-income countries especially sub-Saharan Africa.

Developing primary care teams prepared to improve quality: a mixed-methods evaluation and lessons learned from implementing a microsystems approach

Background

Health systems in the United States are increasingly required to become leaders in quality to compete successfully in a value-conscious purchasing market. Doing so involves developing effective clinical teams using approaches like the clinical microsystems framework. However, there has been limited assessment of this approach within United States primary care settings.

Methods

This paper describes the implementation, mixed-methods evaluation results, and lessons learned from instituting a Microsystems approach across 6 years with 58 primary care teams at a large Midwestern academic health care system. The evaluation consisted of a longitudinal survey augmented by interviews and focus groups. Structured facilitated longitudinal discussions with leadership captured ongoing lessons learned. Quantitative analysis employed ordinal logistic regression and compared aggregate responses at 6-months and 12-months to those at the baseline period. Qualitative analysis used an immersion/crystallization approach.

Results

Survey results (N = 204) indicated improved perceptions of: organizational support, team effectiveness and cohesion, meeting and quality improvement skills, and team communication. Thematic challenges from the qualitative data included: lack of time and coverage for participation, need for technical/technology support, perceived devaluation of improvement work, difficulty aggregating or spreading learnings, tensions between team and clinic level change, a part-time workforce, team instability and difficulties incorporating a data driven improvement approach.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that a microsystems approach is valuable for building team relationships and quality improvement skills but is challenged in a large, diverse academic primary care context. They additionally suggest that primary care transformation will require purposeful changes implemented across the micro to macro-level including but not only focused on quality improvement training for microsystem teams.

Evaluating broad-scale system change using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: challenges and strategies to overcome them

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper is to demonstrate the utility of the CFIR framework for evaluating broad-scale change by discussing the challenges to be addressed when planning the assessment of broad-scale change and the solutions developed by the evaluation team to address those challenges. The evaluation of implementation of Patient-centered Care and Cultural Transformation (PCC&CT) within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will be used as a demonstrative example. Patient-Centered Care (PCC) is personalized health care that considers a patient's circumstances and goals. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is working towards implementing PCC throughout its healthcare system, comprised of multiple interventions with a singular long-term goal of cultural transformation, however little is known about the factors influencing its implementation. This paper discusses the issues that arose using CFIR to qualitatively assess the factors influencing implementation of cultural transformation.

RESULTS

Application of CFIR to this broad-scale evaluation revealed three strategies recommended for use in evaluating implementation of broad-scale change: (1) the need for adapted definitions for CFIR constructs (especially due to new application to broad-scale change), (2) the use of a mixed deductive-inductive approach with thematic coding to capture emergent themes not encompassed by CFIR, and (3) its use for expedited analysis and synthesis for rapid delivery of findings to operational partners. This paper is among the first to describe use of CFIR to guide the evaluation of a broad-scale transformation, as opposed to discrete interventions. The processes and strategies described in this paper provide a detailed example and structured approach that can be utilized and expanded upon by others evaluating implementation of broad-scale evaluations. Although CFIR was the framework selected for this evaluation, the strategies described in this paper including: use of adapted definitions, use of mixed deductive-inductive approach, and the approach for expedited analysis and synthesis can be transferred and tested with other frameworks.

Building the learning health system: Describing an organizational infrastructure to support continuous learning

INTRODUCTION

Academic health centers are reorganizing in response to dramatic changes in the health-care environment. To improve value, they and other health systems must become a learning health system, specifically one that has the capacity to understand performance across the continuum of care and use that information to achieve continuous improvements in efficiency and effectiveness. While learning health system concepts have been well described, the practical steps to create such a system are not well defined. Establishing the necessary infrastructure is particularly challenging at academic health centers due to their tripartite missions and complex organizational structures.

METHODS

Using an evidence-based framework, this article describes a series of organizational-level interventions implemented at an academic health center to create the structures and processes to support the functions of a learning health system.

RESULTS

Following implementation of changes from 2008 to 2013, system-level performance improved in multiple domains: patient satisfaction, population health screenings, improvement education, and patient engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

This experience can be applied to health systems that wrestle with making system-level change when existing cultures, structures, and processes vary. Using an evidence -based framework is useful when developing the structures and processes that support the functions of a learning health system.

Building the learning health system: Describing an organizational infrastructure to support continuous learning

INTRODUCTION

Academic health centers are reorganizing in response to dramatic changes in the health-care environment. To improve value, they and other health systems must become a learning health system, specifically one that has the capacity to understand performance across the continuum of care and use that information to achieve continuous improvements in efficiency and effectiveness. While learning health system concepts have been well described, the practical steps to create such a system are not well defined. Establishing the necessary infrastructure is particularly challenging at academic health centers due to their tripartite missions and complex organizational structures.

METHODS

Using an evidence-based framework, this article describes a series of organizational-level interventions implemented at an academic health center to create the structures and processes to support the functions of a learning health system.

RESULTS

Following implementation of changes from 2008 to 2013, system-level performance improved in multiple domains: patient satisfaction, population health screenings, improvement education, and patient engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

This experience can be applied to health systems that wrestle with making system-level change when existing cultures, structures, and processes vary. Using an evidence -based framework is useful when developing the structures and processes that support the functions of a learning health system.

Developing an Interdisciplinary, Team-Based Quality Improvement Leadership Training Program for Clinicians: The Partners Clinical Process Improvement Leadership Program

Although there has been tremendous progress in quality improvement (QI) education for students and trainees in recent years, much less has been published regarding the training of active clinicians in QI. The Partners Clinical Process Improvement Leadership Program (CPIP) is a 6-day experiential program. Interdisciplinary teams complete a QI project framed by didactic sessions, interactive exercises, case-based problem sessions, and a final presentation. A total of 239 teams composed of 516 individuals have graduated CPIP. On completion, participant satisfaction scores average 4.52 (scale 1-5) and self-reported understanding of QI concepts improved. At 6 months after graduation, 66% of survey respondents reported sustained QI activity. Three opportunities to improve the program have been identified: (1) increasing faculty participation through online and tiered course offerings, (2) integrating the faculty-focused program with the trainee curriculum, and (3) developing a postgraduate curriculum to address the challenges of sustained improvement.

Across the divide: "Primary care departments working together to redesign care to achieve the Triple Aim"

BACKGROUND

Primary care is considered the foundation of an effective health care system. However, primary care departments at academic health centers have numerous challenges to overcome when trying to achieve the Triple Aim.

METHODS

As part of an organizational initiative to redesign primary care at a large academic health center, departments of internal medicine, general pediatrics and adolescent medicine, and family medicine worked together to comprehensively redesign primary care. This article describes the process of aligning these three primary care departments: defining panel size, developing a common primary care job description, redesigning the primary care compensation plan, redesigning the care model, and developing standardized staffing.

RESULTS

Prior to the initiative, the rate of patient satisfaction was 85%, anticoagulation measurement 65%, pneumococcal vaccination 85%, breast cancer screening 79%, and colorectal cancer screening 69%. These rates all improved to 87%, 75%, 88%, 80%, and 80% respectively. Themes around key challenges to departmental integration are identified: (1) implementing effective communication strategies; (2) addressing specialty differences in primary care delivery; (3) working within resource limitations; and (4) developing long-term sustainability.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care in this large academic health center was transformed through developing a united primary care leadership team that bridged individual departments to create and adopt a common vision and solutions to shared problems. Our collaboration has achieved improvements across patient satisfaction, clinical safety metrics, and publicly-reported preventive care outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS

The description of this experience may be useful for other academic health centers or other non-integrated delivery systems undertaking primary care practice transformation.