The effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives in improving stroke care and the facilitators and barriers to their implementation: a systematic review

Engaging health care professionals in quality improvement: A qualitative study exploring the synergies between projects of professionalisation and institutionalisation in quality improvement collaborative implementation in Denmark

OBJECTIVE

To examine the projects of professionalisation and institutionalisation forming health care professions' engagement in quality improvement collaborative (QIC) implementation in Denmark, and to analyse the synergies and tensions between the two projects given the opportunities afforded by the QICs.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional interview study with professionals involved in the implementation of two national QICs in Denmark involving 23 individual interviews and focus group discussions with 75 people representing different professional groups. We conducted a reflexive thematic analysis of the data, drawing on institutional contributions to organisational studies of professions.

RESULTS

Study participants engaged widely in QIC implementation. This engagement was formed by a constructive interplay between the professions' projects of professionalisation and institutionalisation, with only few tensions identified. The project of professionalisation relates to a self-oriented agenda of contributing professional expertise and promoting professional recognition and development, while the project of institutionalisation focuses on improving health care processes and outcomes and advancing quality improvement. Both projects were largely similar across professional groups. The interplay between the two projects was enabled by the bottom-up approach to implementation, participation of QI specialists, and a clear focus on developing and delivering high-quality patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

Future strategies for QIC implementation should position QICs as a framework that promotes the integration of professions' projects of professionalisation and institutionalisation to successfully engage professionals in the implementation process, and thereby optimise the effectiveness of QICs in health care.

Learning together for better health using an evidence-based Learning Health System framework: a case study in stroke

BACKGROUND

In the context of expanding digital health tools, the health system is ready for Learning Health System (LHS) models. These models, with proper governance and stakeholder engagement, enable the integration of digital infrastructure to provide feedback to all relevant parties including clinicians and consumers on performance against best practice standards, as well as fostering innovation and aligning healthcare with patient needs. The LHS literature primarily includes opinion or consensus-based frameworks and lacks validation or evidence of benefit. Our aim was to outline a rigorously codesigned, evidence-based LHS framework and present a national case study of an LHS-aligned national stroke program that has delivered clinical benefit.

MAIN TEXT

Current core components of a LHS involve capturing evidence from communities and stakeholders (quadrant 1), integrating evidence from research findings (quadrant 2), leveraging evidence from data and practice (quadrant 3), and generating evidence from implementation (quadrant 4) for iterative system-level improvement. The Australian Stroke program was selected as the case study as it provides an exemplar of how an iterative LHS works in practice at a national level encompassing and integrating evidence from all four LHS quadrants. Using this case study, we demonstrate how to apply evidence-based processes to healthcare improvement and embed real-world research for optimising healthcare improvement. We emphasize the transition from research as an endpoint, to research as an enabler and a solution for impact in healthcare improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

The Australian Stroke program has nationally improved stroke care since 2007, showcasing the value of integrated LHS-aligned approaches for tangible impact on outcomes. This LHS case study is a practical example for other health conditions and settings to follow suit.

Virtual quality improvement collaborative with primary care practices during COVID-19: a case study within a clinically integrated network

INTRODUCTION

Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) are a common approach to facilitate practice change and improve care delivery. Attention to QIC implementation processes and outcomes can inform best practices for designing and delivering collaborative content. In partnership with a clinically integrated network, we evaluated implementation outcomes for a virtual QIC with independent primary care practices delivered during COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted a longitudinal case study evaluation of a virtual QIC in which practices participated in bimonthly online meetings and monthly tailored QI coaching sessions from July 2020 to June 2021. Implementation outcomes included: (1) level of engagement (meeting attendance and poll questions), (2) QI capacity (assessments completed by QI coaches), (3) use of QI tools (plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycles started and completed) and (4) participant perceptions of acceptability (interviews and surveys).

RESULTS

Seven clinics from five primary care practices participated in the virtual QIC. Of the seven sites, five were community health centres, three were in rural counties and clinic size ranged from 1 to 7 physicians. For engagement, all practices had at least one member attend all online QIC meetings and most (9/11 (82%)) poll respondents reported meeting with their QI coach at least once per month. For QI capacity, practice-level scores showed improvements in foundational, intermediate and advanced QI work. For QI tools used, 26 PDCA cycles were initiated with 9 completed. Most (10/11 (91%)) survey respondents were satisfied with their virtual QIC experience. Twelve interviews revealed additional themes such as challenges in obtaining real-time data and working with multiple electronic medical record systems.

DISCUSSION

A virtual QIC conducted with independent primary care practices during COVID-19 resulted in high participation and satisfaction. QI capacity and use of QI tools increased over 1 year. These implementation outcomes suggest that virtual QICs may be an attractive alternative to engage independent practices in QI work.

Distributed leadership in health quality improvement collaboratives

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Distributed leadership has been suggested for describing patterns of influence in collaborative settings where public services are performed across professions and organizations. This study explores how leadership in health quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) is characterized by aligned distributed leadership practices, and how these practices relate with experienced progress and achievements in the quality improvement (QI) work.

METHODS

The analysis relied on a qualitative, multicase study of two nationwide Danish QICs. Data consisted of 12 single-person and 21 group interviews with local QI teams and local and regional QIC coordinators (85 informants in total), participant observations of 34 meetings within the QICs, and a collection of documentary material. The collected data were analyzed thematically with NVivo.

RESULTS

Leadership practices in local QI teams are characterized by aligned distributed leadership, with leadership activities being widely distributed based on negotiated, emergent practices regarding the aims, roles, and scope of the QI work. However, local quality coordinators play a pivotal role in driving the QI activities, and hierarchical support from hospital/municipal management is a precondition for the contribution of aligned distributed leadership to experienced progress and QIs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Emergent distributed leadership should be balanced by thorough consolidation of the practices to provide the best circumstances for robust QI. The active participation of formal managers and local coordinators plays a pivotal role in this consolidation and is decisive for the increased potential for long-term success and sustainability of the QI work, particularly within complex QICs.

Quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for the management of Dysphagia after acute stroke

Objectives

Dysphagia is a common complication in stroke patients, widely affecting recovery and quality of life after stroke. The objective of this systematic review is to identify the gaps that between evidence and practice by critically assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for management of dysphagia in stroke.

Methods

We systematically searched academic databases and guideline repositories between January 1, 2014, and August 1, 2023. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument was used by two authors to independently assess CPG quality.

Results

In a total of 14 CPGs included, we identified that three CPGs obtained a final evaluation of "high quality," nine CPGs achieved "moderate quality" and two CPGs received "low quality." The domain of "scope and purpose" achieved the highest mean score (91.1%) and the highest median (IQR) of 91.7% (86.1, 94.4%), while the domain of "applicability" received the lowest mean score (55.8%) and the lowest median (IQR) of 55.4% (43.2, 75.5%).

Conclusion

The CPG development group should pay more attention to improving the methodological quality according to the AGREE II instrument, especially in the domain of "applicability" and "stakeholder involvement;" and each item should be refined as much as possible.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting and resource allocation tools in hospital decisions: A systematic review

Health care budgets in high-income countries are having issues coping with unsustainable growth in demand, particularly in the hospital setting. Despite this, implementing tools systematising priority setting and resource allocation decisions has been challenging. This study answers two questions: (1) what are the barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting tools in the hospital setting of high-income countries? and (2) what is their fidelity? A systematic review using the Cochrane methods was conducted including studies of hospital-related priority setting tools reporting barriers or facilitators for implementation, published after the year 2000. Barriers and facilitators were classified using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Fidelity was assessed using priority setting tool's standards. Out of thirty studies, ten reported program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA), twelve multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), six health technology assessment (HTA) related frameworks, and two, an ad hoc tool. Barriers and facilitators were outlined across all CFIR domains. Implementation factors not frequently observed, such as 'evidence of previous successful tool application', 'knowledge and beliefs about the intervention' or 'external policy and incentives' were reported. Conversely, some constructs did not yield any barrier or facilitator including 'intervention source' or 'peer pressure'. PBMA studies satisfied the fidelity criteria between 86% and 100%, for MCDA it varied between 36% and 100%, and for HTA it was between 27% and 80%. However, fidelity was not related to implementation. This study is the first to use an implementation science approach. Results represent the starting point for organisations wishing to use priority setting tools in the hospital setting by providing an overview of barriers and facilitators. These factors can be used to assess readiness for implementation or to serve as the foundation for process evaluations. Through our findings, we aim to improve the uptake of priority setting tools and support their sustainable use.

An Approach to Evaluating Multisector Partnerships to Support Evidence-Based Quality Improvement in Primary Care

BACKGROUND

Quality improvement (QI) interventions in primary care are increasingly designed and implemented by multisector partnerships, yet little guidance exists on how to best monitor or evaluate these partnerships. The goal of this project was to describe an approach for evaluating the development and effectiveness of a multisector partnership using data from the first year of the Healthy Hearts for Michigan (HH4M) Cooperative, a multisector partnership of nine organizations tasked with designing and implementing evidence-based QI strategies for hypertension management and tobacco cessation in 50 rural primary care practices.

METHODS

The researchers developed a 49-item online survey focused on factors that facilitate or hinder multisector partnerships, drawing on implementation science and partnership, engagement, and collaboration research. The team surveyed all 44 members of the HH4M Cooperative (79.5% response rate) and conducted interviews with 14 members. The interviews focused on implementation phase-specific goals, accomplishments, and challenges. Descriptive analysis was used for the survey results, and thematic analysis for the interview data.

RESULTS

Respondents reported strong overall performance by the Cooperative during its first year, which facilitated the successful completion of several intervention design tasks. Strengths included having a clear purpose and trust and respect among members. Areas for improvement included a need for common terminology, clarification of roles and functions, and improvement in communication across workgroups. Lack of engagement from physician practices due to capacity constraints, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, was the Cooperative's biggest challenge.

CONCLUSION

This multimethod approach to evaluating the development and effectiveness of a multisector partnership yielded practical, actionable feedback to program leaders.

Stroke Learning Health Systems: A Topical Narrative Review With Case Examples

To our knowledge, the adoption of Learning Health System (LHS) concepts or approaches for improving stroke care, patient outcomes, and value have not previously been summarized. This topical review provides a summary of the published evidence about LHSs applied to stroke, and case examples applied to different aspects of stroke care from high and low-to-middle income countries. Our attempt to systematically identify the relevant literature and obtain real-world examples demonstrated the dissemination gaps, the lack of learning and action for many of the related LHS concepts across the continuum of care but also elucidated the opportunity for continued dialogue on how to study and scale LHS advances. In the field of stroke, we found only a few published examples of LHSs and health systems globally implementing some selected LHS concepts, but the term is not common. A major barrier to identifying relevant LHS examples in stroke may be the lack of an agreed taxonomy or terminology for classification. We acknowledge that health service delivery settings that leverage many of the LHS concepts do so operationally and the lessons learned are not shared in peer-reviewed literature. It is likely that this topical review will further stimulate the stroke community to disseminate related activities and use keywords such as learning health system so that the evidence base can be more readily identified.

Effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives in UK surgical settings and barriers and facilitators influencing their implementation: a systematic review and evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

High-quality surgical care is vital to deliver the excellent outcomes patients deserve following surgical treatment. Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) are based on a multicentre model for improving healthcare. They are increasingly used but their effectiveness in the context of surgical services is unclear. This review assessed effectiveness of QICs in National Health Service (NHS) surgical settings, and identified factors that influenced implementation.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE, as well as grey literature, was conducted in January 2022 to identify evaluations of QICs in NHS surgical settings. Data were extracted on the intervention, setting, study results and factors that were identified as facilitators or barriers. These were coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The quality of study reports was assessed using Quality Improvement Minimum Criteria Set.

RESULTS

Fifteen reports on 10 QICs met inclusion criteria. The evaluations used study designs of different strength, with one using a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial (RCT). Eight studies reported the QIC had been successful in achieving their principal aims, which covered a mix of patient outcomes and process indicators. The study based on the RCT found the QIC was not successful (no improvement in patient outcomes). Each article reported a range of facilitators and barriers to effectiveness of implementation of the QIC, which were spread across the CFIR domains (intervention, outer setting, inner setting, individuals and process). There were few barriers reported in the intervention domain that related to the QIC. There was no clear relationship between numbers of facilitators and barriers reported and effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies have reported QICs to be effective in increasingly complex contexts, but their results must be treated with caution. The evaluations often used weak study designs and the quality of reports was variable. Evaluation with strong study design should be integral to future QICs.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022324970.

Implementation through translation: a qualitative case study of translation processes in the implementation of quality improvement collaboratives

BACKGROUND

Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) are used extensively to implement quality improvement in healthcare, and current research is demonstrating positive yet varying evidence. To interpret the effectiveness results, it is necessary to illuminate the dynamics of QIC implementation in specific contexts. Using Scandinavian institutionalist translation theory as a theoretical framework, this study aims to make two contributions. First, we provide insights into the dynamics of the translation processes inherent in QIC implementation. Second, we discuss the implications of the translation processes as experienced by participating actors.

METHODS

We used empirical data from a qualitative case study investigating the implementation of QICs as an approach to quality improvement within a national Danish healthcare quality program. We included two diverse QICs to allow for exploration of the significance of organizational complexity for the translation processes. Data comprised qualitative interviews, participant observation and documentary material.

RESULTS

Translation was an inherent part of QIC implementation. Key actors at different organizational levels engaged in translation of their implementation roles, and the QIC content and methodology. They drew on different translation strategies and practices that mainly materialized as kinds of modification. The translations were motivated by deliberate, strategic, and pragmatic rationales, contingent on combinations of features of the actors' organizational contexts, and the transformability and organizational complexity of the QICs. The findings point to a transformative power of translation, as different translations led to various regional and local QIC versions. Furthermore, the findings indicate that translation affects the outcomes of the implementation process and the QIC intervention. Translation may positively affect the institutionalization of the QICs and the creation of professional engagement and negatively influence the QIC effects.

CONCLUSION

The findings extends the current research concerning the understanding of the dynamics of the translation processes embedded in the local implementation of QICs, and thus constitute a valuable contribution to a more sustainable and effective implementation of QICs in healthcare improvement. For researchers and practitioners, this highlights translation as an embedded part of the QIC implementation process, and encourages detailed attention to the implications of translation for both organizational institutionalization and realisation of the expected intervention outcomes.

Effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives in improving clinical processes and patient outcomes in stroke care

Stroke remains one of the leading causes of death worldwide. In order to tackle the negative impacts of stroke, a high standard of clinical practice and a commitment to continuous quality improvement is needed across the stroke care pathway. One approach to quality improvement is the formation and implementation of quality improvement collaboratives (QIC's). However, there are several barriers to the implementation of a QIC for stroke care which may impact on their success. This article critically appraises a systematic review which assessed the effectiveness of QIC's for driving improvements in stroke care and explored the barriers to implementing a QIC's to improve care.

Sustainment of a Complex Culturally Competent Care Intervention for Hispanic Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: A Longitudinal Analysis of Adaptations

Introduction:

Sustainment refers to continued intervention delivery over time, while continuing to produce intended outcomes, often with ongoing adaptations, which are purposeful changes to the design or delivery of an intervention to improve its fit or effectiveness. The Hispanic Kidney Transplant Program (HKTP), a complex, culturally competent intervention, was implemented in two transplant programs to reduce disparities in Hispanic/Latinx living donor kidney transplant rates. This study longitudinally examined the influence of adaptations on HKTP sustainment.

Methods:

Qualitative interviews, learning collaborative calls, and telephone meetings with physicians, administrators, and staff (n = 55) were conducted over three years of implementation to identify HKTP adaptations. The Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Expanded was used to classify adaptation types and frequency, which were compared across sites over time.

Results:

Across sites, more adaptations were made in the first year (n = 47), then fell and plateaued in the two remaining years (n = 35). Adaptations at Site-A were consistent across years (2017: n = 18, 2018: n = 17, 2019: n = 14), while Site-B made considerably fewer adaptations after the first year (2017: n = 29, 2018: n = 18, 2019: n = 21). Both sites proportionally made mostly skipping (32%), adding (20%), tweaking (20%), and substituting (16%) adaptation types. Skipping- and substituting-type adaptations were made due to institutional structural characteristics and lack of available resources, respectively. However, Site-A’s greater proportion of skipping-type adaptations was attributed to greater system complexity, and Site-B’s greater proportion of adding-type adaptation was attributed to the egalitarian team-based culture.

Conclusion:

Our findings can help prepare implementers to expect certain context-specific adaptations and preemptively avoid those that hinder sustainment.