Learning from Excellence to Improve Healthcare Services: The Experience of the Maternal and Child Care Pathway

The use of positive deviance approach to improve health service delivery and quality of care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Quality has been a persistent challenge in the healthcare system, particularly in resource-limited settings. As a result, the utilization of innovative approaches is required to help countries in their efforts to enhance the quality of healthcare. The positive deviance (PD) approach is an innovative approach that can be utilized to improve healthcare quality. The approach assumes that solutions to problems are already available within the community and identifying and sharing those solutions can help others to resolve existing issues. Therefore, this scoping review aimed to synthesize the evidence regarding the use of the PD approach in healthcare system service delivery and quality improvement programs.

METHODS

Articles were retrieved from six international databases. The last date for article search was June 02, 2023, and no date restriction was applied. All articles were assessed for inclusion through a title and/or abstract read. Then, articles that passed the title and abstract review were screened by reading their full texts. In case of duplication, only the full-text published articles were retained. A descriptive mapping and evidence synthesis was done to present data with the guide of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for Scoping Reviews checklist and the results are presented in text, table, and figure formats.

RESULTS

A total of 125 articles were included in this scoping review. More than half, 66 (52.8%), of the articles were from the United States, 11(8.8%) from multinational studies, 10 (8%) from Canada, 8 (6.4%) from the United Kingdom and the remaining, 30 (24%) are from other nations around the world. The scoping review indicates that several types of study designs can be applied in utilizing the PD approach for healthcare service and quality improvement programs. However, although validated performance measures are utilized to identify positive deviants (PDs) in many of the articles, some of the selection criteria utilized by authors lack clarity and are subject to potential bias. In addition, several limitations have been mentioned in the articles including issues in operationalizing PD, focus on leaders and senior managers and limited staff involvement, bias, lack of comparison, limited setting, and issues in generalizability/transferability of results from prospects perspective. Nevertheless, the limitations identified are potentially manageable and can be contextually resolved depending on the nature of the study. Furthermore, PD has been successfully employed in healthcare service and quality improvement programs including in increasing surgical care quality, hand hygiene practice, and reducing healthcare-associated infections.

CONCLUSION

The scoping review findings have indicated that healthcare systems have been able to enhance quality, reduce errors, and improve patient outcomes by identifying lessons from those who exhibit exceptional practices and implementing successful strategies in their practice. All the outcomes of PD-based research, however, are dependent on the first step of identifying true PDs. Hence, it is critical that PDs are identified using objective and validated measures of performance as failure to identify true PDs can subsequently lead to failure in identifying best practices for learning and dissemination to other contextually similar settings.

'Naming and faming' maternity care providers: A mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Positive benchmarking can serve as a catalyst for maternity care improvement.

AIM

To retrospectively benchmark Flemish maternity care providers' qualities, based on women's positive care experiences, and to explore which attributes of the different care providers contribute to these experiences.

METHODS

A sequential, two-phased mixed-methods study benchmarking the qualities of the community midwife, the hospital midwife, and the obstetrician. An online questionnaire was used to collect the data among pregnant and postpartum women, who rated their care experiences with the various care providers using the Net Promoter Score. Non-parametric and post hoc tests established the differences between types of clinicians and between antenatal, intrapartum, and postpartum Net Promoter Score mean scores. Content analysis was used to construct a final pool of keywords representing attributes of care professionals, accumulated from the promoters' free text responses. Ranks were assigned to each keyword based on its frequency.

FINDINGS

A total of 2385 Net Promoter Scale scores and 1856 free-text responses of 1587 responders were included. The community midwife received the overall highest NPS scores (p < .001). The promoters (n = 1015) assigned community midwives the highest NPS scores (9.67), followed by obstetricians (9.57) and hospital-based midwives (9.51). The distinct benchmarking attributes of community midwives were availability (p < .001), supportiveness (p = .04) and personalised care (p < .001). Being honest (p < .001), empathic (p < .001) and inexhaustible (p = .04) benchmarked hospital midwives. Calmness (p < .001), a no-nonsense approach (p < .001), being humane (p = .01) and comforting (p = .02) benchmarked obstetricians.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

The findings indicate that all care providers are highly valued, but community midwives are ranked the highest. The distinct differences between the care professionals can serve as exemplary performance for professional development and shape the profiles of maternity care professionals.

The Italian interregional performance evaluation system

This contribution describes the Interregional Performance Evaluation System (IRPES) designed by MeS Lab of Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies (Pisa-Italy), by highlighting its main characteristics and its evolution.Context: Since its creation in 2008, the IRPES has been developed by researchers from different backgrounds, with the involvement of practitioners and managers, so as to offer support to local, regional and national healthcare management. The IRPES is currently adopted by 12 Italian regions, which share a common performance evaluation system to assess the respective regional healthcare systems' performance.Structure: The IRPES is currently composed of about 400 indicators, which monitor different dimensions of the health systems. About half of them are benchmarked against shared standards, to assess the healthcare systems' performance. Indicators are grouped into around thirty composite indicators.Data visualization: MeS Lab designed innovative tools to deliver a clear representation of the performance of health systems, which in turn facilitate policymakers to gain a dynamic understanding of weaknesses and strengths of the systems they manage. In particular, the more traditional representation tools (such as maps or histograms) are accompanied by new visualisation instruments, such as "the dartboard" and "the stave".Covid-19: With the outburst of COVID-19 pandemic emergency, assessing the resilience of healthcare systems has become the new challenge posed to the IRPES. Thus, 63 novel resilience indicators tailored for the pandemic were introduced, starting from the second semester of 2020. Continuous monitoring of the performance of health systems was equally implemented, which has been essential to policymakers during such a difficult time.

COVID-19 VACCINATION: AN OVERVIEW OF THE ITALIAN NATIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM ONLINE COMMUNICATION FROM A CITIZEN PERSPECTIVE

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is still widespread. During the pandemic, the internet has been the preferred channel for health-related information, especially for less-educated citizens who tend to be the most hesitant about vaccination. A well-structured web communication strategy could help both to overcome vaccine hesitancy and to ensure equity in healthcare service access. This study investigated how the various regional and local health authorities in Italy used their institutional websites to inform users about COVID-19 vaccinations between March and April 2021. We browsed 129 institutional websites, checking the availability, quality and quantity, actionability and readability of information using a literature-based common grid. Descriptive statistics and statistical tests were performed. The online public dissemination of COVID-19 vaccination information in Italy was fragmented, both across and within regions. The side effects of vaccinations, were often not reported on the websites, thus missing an opportunity to enhance vaccination uptake. More focus should also be placed on readability, since readability indexes showed that they were difficult to understand. Our research revealed that several actions could be implemented to enhance online communication on COVID-19 vaccination. For instance, simplifying texts can make them more understandable and the information reported actionable.

The contribution of benchmarking to quality improvement in healthcare. A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Benchmarking has been recognised as a valuable method to help identify strengths and weaknesses at all levels of the healthcare system. Despite a growing interest in the practice and study of benchmarking, its contribution to quality of care have not been well elucidated. As such, we conducted a systematic literature review with the aim of synthesizing the evidence regarding the relationship between benchmarking and quality improvement. We also sought to provide evidence on the associated strategies that can be used to further stimulate quality improvement.

METHODS

We searched three databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus) for articles studying the impact of benchmarking on quality of care (processes and outcomes). Following assessment of the articles for inclusion, we conducted data analysis, quality assessment and critical synthesis according to the PRISMA guidelines for systematic literature review.

RESULTS

A total of 17 articles were identified. All studies reported a positive association between the use of benchmarking and quality improvement in terms of processes (N = 10), outcomes (N = 13) or both (N = 7). In the majority of studies (N = 12), at least one intervention, complementary to benchmarking, was undertaken to stimulate quality improvement. The interventions ranged from meetings between participants to quality improvement plans and financial incentives. A combination of multiple interventions was present in over half of the studies (N = 10).

CONCLUSIONS

The results generated from this review suggest that the practice of benchmarking in healthcare is a growing field, and more research is needed to better understand its effects on quality improvement. Furthermore, our findings indicate that benchmarking may stimulate quality improvement, and that interventions, complementary to benchmarking, seem to reinforce this improvement. Although this study points towards the benefit of combining performance measurement with interventions in terms of quality, future research should further analyse the impact of these interventions individually.