Search

Introduction: Adverse events in health care affect 8% to 12% of patients admitted to hospitals in the European Union (EU), with surgical adverse events being the most common types reported., Aim: SAFEST project aims to enhance perioperative care quality and patient safety by establishing and implementing widely supported evidence-based perioperative patient safety practices to reduce surgical adverse events., Methods: We will conduct a mixed-methods hybrid type III implementation study supporting the development and adoption of evidence-based practices through a Quality Improvement Learning Collaborative (QILC) in co-creation with stakeholders. The project will be conducted in 10 hospitals and related healthcare facilities of 5 European countries. We will assess the level of adherence to the standardised practices, as well as surgical complications incidence, patient-reported outcomes, contextual factors influencing the implementation of the patient safety practices, and sustainability. The project will consist of six components: 1) Development of patient safety standardised practices in perioperative care; 2) Guided self-evaluation of the standardised practices; 3) Identification of priorities and actions plans; 4) Implementation of a QILC strategy; 5) Evaluation of the strategy effectiveness; 6) Patient empowerment for patient safety. Sustainability of the project will be ensured by systematic assessment of sustainability factors and business plans. Towards the end of the project, a call for participation will be launched to allow other hospitals to conduct the self-evaluation of the standardized practices., Discussion: The SAFEST project will promote patient safety standardized practices in the continuum of care for adult patients undergoing surgery. This project will result in a broad implementation of evidence-based practices for perioperative care, spanning from the care provided before hospital admission to post-operative recovery at home or outpatient facilities. Different implementation challenges will be faced in the application of the evidence-based practices, which will be mitigated by developing context-specific implementation strategies. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and will be available in an online platform., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Valli et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: It is now widely accepted that the mixed effect and success rates of strategies to improve quality and safety in health care are in part due to the different contexts in which the interventions are planned and implemented. The objectives of this study were to (i) describe the reporting of contextual factors in the literature on the effectiveness of quality improvement strategies, (ii) assess the relationship between effectiveness and contextual factors, and (iii) analyse the importance of contextual factors., Methods: We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews searching the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase and CINAHL. The search focused on quality improvement strategies included in the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group taxonomy. We extracted data on quality improvement effectiveness and context factors. The latter were categorized according to the Model for Understanding Success in Quality tool., Results: We included 56 systematic reviews in this study of which only 35 described contextual factors related with the effectiveness of quality improvement interventions. The most frequently reported contextual factors were: quality improvement team (n = 12), quality improvement support and capacity (n = 11), organization (n = 9), micro-system (n = 8), and external environment (n = 4). Overall, context factors were poorly reported. Where they were reported, they seem to explain differences in quality improvement effectiveness; however, publication bias may contribute to the observed differences., Conclusions: Contextual factors may influence the effectiveness of quality improvement interventions, in particular at the level of the clinical micro-system. Future research on the implementation and effectiveness of quality improvement interventions should emphasize formative evaluation to elicit information on context factors and report on them in a more systematic way in order to better appreciate their relative importance.

Background: High performing hospitals attain excellence across multiple measures of performance and multiple departments. Studying high performing hospitals can be valuable if factors associated with high performance can be identified and applied. Factors leading to high performance are complex and an exclusive quantitative approach may fail to identify richly descriptive or relevant contextual factors. The objective of this study was to undertake a systematic review of qualitative literature to identify methods used to identify high performing hospitals, the factors associated with high performers, and practical strategies for improvement., Methods: Methods used to collect and summarise the evidence contributing to this review followed the 'enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research' protocol. Peer reviewed studies were identified through Medline, Embase and Cinahl (Jan 2000-Feb 2014) using specified key words, subject terms, and medical subject headings. Eligible studies required the use of a quantitative method to identify high performing hospitals, and qualitative methods or tools to identify factors associated with high performing hospitals or hospital departments. Title, abstract, and full text screening was undertaken by four reviewers, and inter-rater reliability statistics were calculated for each review phase. Risk of bias was assessed. Following data extraction, thematic syntheses identified contextual factors important for explaining success. Practical strategies for achieving high performance were then mapped against the identified themes., Results: A total of 19 studies from a possible 11,428 were included in the review. A range of process, output, outcome and other indicators were used to identify high performing hospitals. Seven themes representing factors associated with high performance (and 25 sub-themes) emerged from the thematic syntheses: positive organisational culture, senior management support, effective performance monitoring, building and maintaining a proficient workforce, effective leaders across the organisation, expertise-driven practice, and interdisciplinary teamwork. Fifty six practical strategies for achieving high performance were catalogued., Conclusions: This review provides insights into methods used to identify high performing hospitals, and yields ideas about the factors important for success. It highlights the need to advance approaches for understanding what constitutes high performance and how to harness factors associated with high performance.

Objective: The objective of this study was to describe the involvement of patients or their representatives in quality management (QM) functions and to assess associations between levels of involvement and the implementation of patient-centred care strategies., Design: A cross-sectional, multilevel, Study Design: that surveyed quality managers and department heads and data from an organizational audit., Setting: Randomly selected hospitals (n = 74) from seven European countries (The Czech Republic, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Turkey)., Participants: Hospital quality managers (n = 74) and heads of clinical departments (n = 262) in charge of four patient pathways (acute myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture and deliveries) participated in the data collection between May 2011 and February 2012., Main Outcome Measures: Four items reflecting essential patient-centred care strategies based on an on-site hospital visit: (1) formal survey seeking views of patients and carers, (2) written policies on patients' rights, (3) patient information literature including guidelines and (4) fact sheets for post-discharge care. The main predictors were patient involvement in QM at the (i) hospital level and (ii) pathway level., Results: Current levels of involving patients and their representatives in QM functions in European hospitals are low at hospital level (mean score 1.6 on a scale of 0 to 5, SD 0.7), but even lower at departmental level (mean 0.6, SD 0.7). We did not detect associations between levels of involving patients and their representatives in QM functions and the implementation of patient-centred care strategies; however, the smallest hospitals were more likely to have implemented patient-centred care strategies., Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence that involving patients and their representatives in QM leads to establishing or implementing strategies and procedures that facilitate patient-centred care; however, lack of evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of no effect.

Introduction and Objective: This paper provides an overview of the DUQuE (Deepening our Understanding of Quality Improvement in Europe) project, the first study across multiple countries of the European Union (EU) to assess relationships between quality management and patient outcomes at EU level. The paper describes the conceptual framework and methods applied, highlighting the novel features of this study., Design: DUQuE was designed as a multi-level cross-sectional study with data collection at hospital, pathway, professional and patient level in eight countries., Setting and Participants: We aimed to collect data for the assessment of hospital-wide constructs from up to 30 randomly selected hospitals in each country, and additional data at pathway and patient level in 12 of these 30., Main Outcome Measures: A comprehensive conceptual framework was developed to account for the multiple levels that influence hospital performance and patient outcomes. We assessed hospital-specific constructs (organizational culture and professional involvement), clinical pathway constructs (the organization of care processes for acute myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture and deliveries), patient-specific processes and outcomes (clinical effectiveness, patient safety and patient experience) and external constructs that could modify hospital quality (external assessment and perceived external pressure)., Results: Data was gathered from 188 hospitals in 7 participating countries. The overall participation and response rate were between 75% and 100% for the assessed measures., Conclusions: This is the first study assessing relation between quality management and patient outcomes at EU level. The study involved a large number of respondents and achieved high response rates. This work will serve to develop guidance in how to assess quality management and makes recommendations on the best ways to improve quality in healthcare for hospital stakeholders, payers, researchers, and policy makers throughout the EU.

Background: Hospitals in European countries apply a wide range of quality improvement strategies. Knowledge of the effectiveness of these strategies, implemented as part of an overall hospital quality improvement system, is limited., Methods/design: We propose to study the relationships among organisational quality improvement systems, patient empowerment, organisational culture, professionals' involvement with the quality of hospital care, including clinical effectiveness, patient safety and patient involvement. We will employ a cross-sectional, multi-level study design in which patient-level measurements are nested in hospital departments, which are in turn nested in hospitals in different EU countries. Mixed methods will be used for data collection, measurement and analysis. Hospital/care pathway level constructs that will be assessed include external pressure, hospital governance, quality improvement system, patient empowerment in quality improvement, organisational culture and professional involvement. These constructs will be assessed using questionnaires. Patient-level constructs include clinical effectiveness, patient safety and patient involvement, and will be assessed using audit of patient records, routine data and patient surveys. For the assessment of hospital and pathway level constructs we will collect data from randomly selected hospitals in eight countries. For a sample of hospitals in each country we will carry out additional data collection at patient-level related to four conditions (stroke, acute myocardial infarction, hip fracture and delivery). In addition, structural components of quality improvement systems will be assessed using visits by experienced external assessors. Data analysis will include descriptive statistics and graphical representations and methods for data reduction, classification techniques and psychometric analysis, before moving to bi-variate and multivariate analysis. The latter will be conducted at hospital and multilevel. In addition, we will apply sophisticated methodological elements such as the use of causal diagrams, outcome modelling, double robust estimation and detailed sensitivity analysis or multiple bias analyses to assess the impact of the various sources of bias., Discussion: Products of the project will include a catalogue of instruments and tools that can be used to build departmental or hospital quality and safety programme and an appraisal scheme to assess the maturity of the quality improvement system for use by hospitals and by purchasers to contract hospitals.

ObjectivesPatient-reported experience measures are increasingly being used to routinely monitor the quality of care. With the increasing attention on such measures, hospital managers seek ways to systematically improve patient experience across hospital departments, in particular where outcomes are used for public reporting or reimbursement. However, it is currently unclear whether hospitals with more mature quality management systems or stronger focus on patient involvement and patient-centered care strategies perform better on patient-reported experience. We assessed the effect of such strategies on a range of patient-reported experience measures.Materials and methodsWe employed a cross-sectional, multi-level study design randomly recruiting hospitals from the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey between May 2011 and January 2012. Each hospital contributed patient level data for four conditions/pathways: acute myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture and deliveries. The outcome variables in this study were a set of patient-reported experience measures including a generic 6-item measure of patient experience (NORPEQ), a 3-item measure of patient-perceived discharge preparation (Health Care Transition Measure) and two single item measures of perceived involvement in care and hospital recommendation. Predictor variables included three hospital management strategies: maturity of the hospital quality management system, patient involvement in quality management functions and patient-centered care strategies. We used directed acyclic graphs to detail and guide the modeling of the complex relationships between predictor variables and outcome variables, and fitted multivariable linear mixed models with random intercept by hospital, and adjusted for fixed effects at the country level, hospital level and patient level.ResultsOverall, 74 hospitals and 276 hospital departments contributed data on 6,536 patients to this study (acute myocardial infarction n = 1,379, hip fracture n = 1,503, deliveries n = 2,088, stroke n = 1,566). Patients admitted for hip fracture and stroke had the lowest scores across the four patient-reported experience measures throughout. Patients admitted after acute myocardial infarction reported highest scores on patient experience and hospital recommendation; women after delivery reported highest scores for patient involvement and health care transition. We found no substantial associations between hospital-wide quality management strategies, patient involvement in quality management, or patient-centered care strategies with any of the patient-reported experience measures.ConclusionThis is the largest study so far to assess the complex relationship between quality management strategies and patient experience with care. Our findings suggest absence of and wide variations in the institutionalization of strategies to engage patients in quality management, or implement strategies to improve patient-centeredness of care. Seemingly counterintuitive inverse associations could be capturing a scenario where hospitals with poorer quality management were beginning to improve their patient experience. The former suggests that patient-centered care is not yet sufficiently integrated in quality management, while the latter warrants a nuanced assessment of the motivation and impact of involving patients in the design and assessment of services.

ObjectiveTo explore how European hospitals have implemented patient safety strategies (PSS) and evidence-based organization of care pathway (EBOP) recommendations and examine the extent to which implementation varies between countries and hospitals.DesignMixed-method multilevel cross-sectional design in seven countries as part of the European Union-funded project 'Deepening our Understanding of Quality improvement in Europe' (DUQuE).Setting and participantsSeventy-four acute care hospitals with 292 departments managing acute myocardial infarction (AMI), hip fracture, stroke, and obstetric deliveries. Main outcome measure Five multi-item composite measures-one generic measure for PSS and four pathway-specific measures for EBOP.ResultsPotassium chloride had only been removed from general medication stocks in 9.4-30.5% of different pathways wards and patients were adequately identified with wristband in 43.0-59.7%. Although 86.3% of areas treating AMI patients had immediate access to a specialist physician, only 56.0% had arrangements for patients to receive thrombolysis within 30 min of arrival at the hospital. A substantial amount of the total variance observed was due to between-hospital differences in the same country for PSS (65.9%). In EBOP, between-country differences play also an important role (10.1% in AMI to 57.1% in hip fracture).ConclusionsThere were substantial gaps between evidence and practice of PSS and EBOP in a sample of European hospitals and variations due to country differences are more important in EBOP than in PSS, but less important than within-country variations. Agencies supporting the implementation of PSS and EBOP should closely re-examine the effectiveness of their current strategies.

ObjectiveTo define a checklist that can be used to assess the performance of a department and evaluate the implementation of quality management (QM) activities across departments or pathways in acute care hospitals.DesignWe developed and tested a checklist for the assessment of QM activities at department level in a cross-sectional study using on-site visits by trained external auditors.Setting and participantsA sample of 292 hospital departments of 74 acute care hospitals across seven European countries. In every hospital, four departments for the conditions: acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, hip fracture and deliveries participated.Main outcome measuresFour measures of QM activities were evaluated at care pathway level focusing on specialized expertise and responsibility (SER), evidence-based organization of pathways (EBOP), patient safety strategies and clinical review (CR).ResultsParticipating departments attained mean values on the various scales between 1.2 and 3.7. The theoretical range was 0-4. Three of the four QM measures are identical for the four conditions, whereas one scale (EBOP) has condition-specific items. Correlations showed that every factor was related, but also distinct, and added to the overall picture of QM at pathway level.ConclusionThe newly developed checklist can be used across various types of departments and pathways in acute care hospitals like AMI, deliveries, stroke and hip fracture. The anticipated users of the checklist are internal (e.g. peers within the hospital and hospital executive board) and external auditors (e.g. healthcare inspectorate, professional or patient organizations).

ObjectiveThe assessment of integral quality management (QM) in a hospital requires measurement and monitoring from different perspectives and at various levels of care delivery. Within the DUQuE project (Deepening our Understanding of Quality improvement in Europe), seven measures for QM were developed. This study investigates the relationships between the various quality measures.DesignIt is a multi-level, cross-sectional, mixed-method study.Setting and participantsAs part of the DUQuE project, we invited a random sample of 74 hospitals in 7 countries. The quality managers of these hospitals were the main respondents. Furthermore, data of site visits of external surveyors assessing the participating hospitals were used.Main outcome measuresThree measures of QM at hospitals level focusing on integral systems (QMSI), compliance with the Plan-Do-Study-Act quality improvement cycle (QMCI) and implementation of clinical quality (CQII). Four measures of QM activities at care pathway level focusing on Specialized expertise and responsibility (SER), Evidence-based organization of pathways (EBOP), Patient safety strategies (PSS) and Clinical review (CR).ResultsPositive significant associations were found between the three hospitals level QM measures. Results of the relationships between levels were mixed and showed most associations between QMCI and department-level QM measures for all four types of departments. QMSI was associated with PSS in all types of departments.ConclusionBy using the seven measures of QM, it is possible to get a more comprehensive picture of the maturity of QM in hospitals, with regard to the different levels and across various types of hospital departments.

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to describe the involvement of patients or their representatives in quality management (QM) functions and to assess associations between levels of involvement and the implementation of patient-centred care strategies.DesignA cross-sectional, multilevelStudy designthat surveyed quality managers and department heads and data from an organizational audit.SettingRandomly selected hospitals (n = 74) from seven European countries (The Czech Republic, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Turkey).ParticipantsHospital quality managers (n = 74) and heads of clinical departments (n = 262) in charge of four patient pathways (acute myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture and deliveries) participated in the data collection between May 2011 and February 2012.Main outcome measuresFour items reflecting essential patient-centred care strategies based on an on-site hospital visit: (1) formal survey seeking views of patients and carers, (2) written policies on patients' rights, (3) patient information literature including guidelines and (4) fact sheets for post-discharge care. The main predictors were patient involvement in QM at the (i) hospital level and (ii) pathway level.ResultsCurrent levels of involving patients and their representatives in QM functions in European hospitals are low at hospital level (mean score 1.6 on a scale of 0 to 5, SD 0.7), but even lower at departmental level (mean 0.6, SD 0.7). We did not detect associations between levels of involving patients and their representatives in QM functions and the implementation of patient-centred care strategies; however, the smallest hospitals were more likely to have implemented patient-centred care strategies.ConclusionsThere is insufficient evidence that involving patients and their representatives in QM leads to establishing or implementing strategies and procedures that facilitate patient-centred care; however, lack of evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of no effect.

Introduction and objectiveThis paper provides an overview of the DUQuE (Deepening our Understanding of Quality Improvement in Europe) project, the first study across multiple countries of the European Union (EU) to assess relationships between quality management and patient outcomes at EU level. The paper describes the conceptual framework and methods applied, highlighting the novel features of this study.DesignDUQuE was designed as a multi-level cross-sectional study with data collection at hospital, pathway, professional and patient level in eight countries.Setting and participantsWe aimed to collect data for the assessment of hospital-wide constructs from up to 30 randomly selected hospitals in each country, and additional data at pathway and patient level in 12 of these 30.Main outcome measuresA comprehensive conceptual framework was developed to account for the multiple levels that influence hospital performance and patient outcomes. We assessed hospital-specific constructs (organizational culture and professional involvement), clinical pathway constructs (the organization of care processes for acute myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture and deliveries), patient-specific processes and outcomes (clinical effectiveness, patient safety and patient experience) and external constructs that could modify hospital quality (external assessment and perceived external pressure).ResultsData was gathered from 188 hospitals in 7 participating countries. The overall participation and response rate were between 75% and 100% for the assessed measures.ConclusionsThis is the first study assessing relation between quality management and patient outcomes at EU level. The study involved a large number of respondents and achieved high response rates. This work will serve to develop guidance in how to assess quality management and makes recommendations on the best ways to improve quality in healthcare for hospital stakeholders, payers, researchers, and policy makers throughout the EU.

Objective To explore how the output of national clinical audits in England is used by professionals and whether and how their impact could be enhanced. Methods A mixed-methods study with the primary recipients of four national clinical audits of cancer care of 607 local audit leads, 274 (45%) completed a questionnaire and 32 participated in an interview. Our questions focused on how the audits were used and whether barriers existed to using the audits for local service improvement. We described variation in questionnaire responses between the audits using chi-squared tests. Results are reported as percentages with their 95% confidence intervals. Qualitative data were analysed using Framework analysis. Results More than 90% of survey respondents believed that the audit findings were relevant to their clinical work, and interviewees described how they used the audits for a range of purposes. Forty-two percent of survey respondents said they had changed their clinical practice, and 56% had implemented service improvements in response to the audits. The degree of change differed between the four audits, evident in both the questionnaire and the interview data. In the interviews, two recurring barriers emerged: (1) the importance of data quality, which, in turn, influenced the perceived relevance and validity of the audit data and therefore the ability to make changes based on it and (2) the need for clear presentation of benchmarked local performance data. The perceived authority and credibility of the professional bodies supporting the audits was a key factor underpinning the use of the audit findings. Conclusion National cancer audit and feedback is used to improve services, but their impact could be enhanced by improving the data quality and relevance of feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The spotlight has recently been placed on managers' responsibility for patient-centred care as a result of Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust failings. In previous research, clinicians reported that managers do not have an adequate structured plan for implementing patient-centred care. The purpose of this paper is to assess the perceptions of European hospital management with respect to factors affecting the implementation of a patient-centred approach.Design/methodology/approach: In total, 15 semi-structured interviews were conducted with hospital managers (n=10), expert country informants (n=2), patient organisations (n=2) and a user representative (n=1) from around Europe. Participants were purposively and snowball sampled. Interviews were analysed using framework analysis.Findings: Most participants felt that current levels of patient-centred care are inadequate, but accounted that there were a number of macro, meso and micro challenges they faced in implementing this approach. These included budget constraints, political and historical factors, the resistance of clinicians and other frontline staff. Organisational culture emerged as a central theme, shaped by these multi-level factors and influencing the way in which patient-centred care was borne out in the hospital. Participants proposed that the needs of patients might be better met through increasing advocacy by patient organisations and greater staff contact with patients.Originality/value: This study is the first of its kind to obtain management views from around Europe. It offers an insight into different models of how patient-centred care is realised by management. It indicates that managers see the value of a patient-centred approach but that they feel restricted by a number of factors at multiple levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review how patient and public involvement (PPI) can contribute to quality improvement functions and describe the levels of PPI in quality improvement functions at hospital and departmental level in a sample of European hospitals. Design/methodology/approach – Literature review and cross-sectional study. Findings – PPI takes multiple forms in health care and there is not a single strategy or method that can be considered to reflect best practice. The literature reveals that PPI can serve important functions to support quality improvement efforts. In contrast, the assessment of actual PPI in quality improvement shows that PPI is low. Research limitations/implications – Findings are not representative of hospitals in the EU. Practical implications – A diverse set of methods and tools that can be employed to realize PPI. Service providers should consider PPI at all stages, in particular in setting quality standards and criteria and in evaluating the results. Originality/value – Contextualization of empirical findings with case studies from the literature that inform further practice and research on PPI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quality Problem Patient-centred care is increasingly being acknowledged as an integral part of evaluating health care. Yet, from a quality improvement perspective the rationale, measurement and implementation of strategies to improve patient-centred care is often subject to debate. Objective The aim of this paper is to review why quality improvement efforts should embrace patient-centredness, to examine some of the measurement issues and to assess conceptual underpinnings that should inform both measurement and actions to improve patient-centred care. Lessons The causal pathway through which quality improvement affects and/or is associated with patient centredness is complex and goes beyond patients' rights and assessing patient views. Interventions to improve patient-centred care should reflect on key rationale, measurement strategy and underlying theory. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Implementation of clinical health promotion (CHP) aiming at better health gain is slow despite its effect. CHP focuses on potentially modifiable lifestyle risks such as smoking, alcohol, diet, and physical inactivity. An operational program was created to improve implementation. It included patients, staff, and the organization, and it combined existing standards, indicators, documentation models, a performance recognition process, and a fast-track implementation model. The aim of this study was to evaluate if the operational program improved implementation of CHP in clinical hospital departments, as measured by health status of patients and staff, frequency of CHP service delivery, and standards compliance.Methods: Forty-eight hospital departments were recruited via open call and stratified by country. Departments were assigned to the operational program (intervention) or usual routine (control group). Data for analyses included 36 of these departments and their 5285 patients (median 147 per department; range 29-201), 2529 staff members (70; 10-393), 1750 medical records (50; 50-50), and standards compliance assessments. Follow-up was measured after 1 year. The outcomes were health status, service delivery, and standards compliance.Results: No health differences between groups were found, but the intervention group had higher identification of lifestyle risk (81% versus 60%, p < 0.01), related information/short intervention and intensive intervention (54% versus 39%, p < 0.01 and 43% versus 25%, p < 0.01, respectively), and standards compliance (95% versus 80%, p = 0.02).Conclusions: The operational program improved implementation by way of lifestyle risk identification, CHP service delivery, and standards compliance. The unknown health effects, the bias, and the limitations should be considered in implementation efforts and further studies.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT01563575. Registered 27 March 2012. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01563575. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]