Search

Innovation in the education and training of healthcare staff is required to support complementary approaches to learning from patient safety and everyday events in healthcare. Debriefing is a commonly used learning tool in healthcare education but not in clinical practice. Little is known about how to implement debriefing as an approach to safety learning across a health system. After action review (AAR) is a debriefing approach designed to help groups come to a shared mental model about what happened, why it happened and to identify learning and improvement. This paper describes a digital-based implementation strategy adapted to the Irish healthcare system to promote AAR uptake. The digital strategy aims to assist implementation of national level incident management policies and was collaboratively developed by the RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences and the National Quality and Patient Safety Directorate of the Health Service Executive. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a well-established in-person AAR training programme was disrupted and this led to the development of a series of open access videos on AAR facilitation skills (which accompany the online version of this paper). These provide: (1) an introduction to the AAR facilitation process; (2) a simulation of a facilitated formal AAR; (3) techniques for handling challenging situations that may arise in an AAR and a (4) reflection on the benefits of the AAR process. These have the potential to be used widely to support learning from patient safety and everyday events including excellent care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To profile the aims and characteristics of quality improvement (QI) initiatives conducted in Ireland, to review the quality of their reporting and to assess outcomes and costs., Design: Scoping review., Data Sources: Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar, Lenus and rian.ie. Two researchers independently screened abstracts (n=379) and separately reviewed 43 studies identified for inclusion using a 70-item critique tool. The tool was based on the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS), an appraisal instrument for QI intervention publications, and health economics reporting criteria. After reaching consensus, the final dataset was analysed using descriptive statistics. To support interpretations, findings were presented at a national stakeholder workshop., Eligibility Criteria: QI studies implemented and evaluated in Ireland and published between January 2015 and April 2020., Results: The 43 studies represented various QI interventions. Most studies were peer-reviewed publications (n=37), conducted in hospitals (n=38). Studies mainly aimed to improve the 'effectiveness' (65%), 'efficiency' (53%), 'timeliness' (47%) and 'safety' (44%) of care. Fewer aimed to improve 'patient-centredness' (30%), 'value for money' (23%) or 'staff well-being' (9%). No study aimed to increase 'equity'. Seventy per cent of studies described 14 of 16 QI-MQCS dimensions. Least often studies reported the 'penetration/reach' of an initiative and only 35% reported health outcomes. While 53% of studies expressed awareness of costs, only eight provided at least one quantifiable figure for costs or savings. No studies assessed the cost-effectiveness of the QI., Conclusion: Irish QI studies included in our review demonstrate varied aims and high reporting standards. Strategies are needed to support greater stimulation and dissemination of QI beyond the hospital sector and awareness of equity issues as QI work. Systematic measurement and reporting of costs and outcomes can be facilitated by integrating principles of health economics in QI education and guidelines., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)