Search

This study was part of the 'Deepening our Understanding of Quality improvement in Europe (DUQuE)' project, funded by the EU 7th Research Framework Program [26]. Its aims and methods are described elsewhere [27]. The study used a multi-method, cross-sectional design to collect quality-related information from European hospitals between May 2011 and February 2012 [27]. Seven countries were included based on a mix of health and hospital system financing and organization criteria in different geographical areas in Europe. The participating countries comprised the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Turkey. In each country, 30 hospitals were randomly recruited, subject to them having more than 130 beds and that they treat acute myocardial infarct, hip fracture, stroke and deliveries patients [27]. The study, "Deepening our Understanding of Quality Improvement in Europe (DUQuE)" has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 241822. Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 241822. Objective: To assess whether there is a relationship between having quality as an item on the board's agenda, perceived external pressure (PEP) and the implementation of quality management in European hospitals. Design: A quantitative, mixed method, cross-sectional study in seven European countries in 2011 surveying CEOs and quality managers and data from onsite audits. Participants: One hundred and fifty-five CEOs and 155 quality managers. Setting: One hundred and fifty-five randomly selected acute care hospitals in seven European countries (Czech Republic, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Turkey). Main outcome measure(s): Three constructs reflecting quality management based on questionnaire and audit data: (i) Quality Management System Index, (ii) Quality Management Compliance Index and (iii) Clinical Quality Implementation Index. The main predictor was whether quality performance was on the executive board's agenda. Results: Discussing quality performance at executive board meetings more often was associated with a higher quality management system score (regression coefficient b = 2.53; SE = 1.16; P = 0.030). We found a trend in the associations of discussing quality performance with quality compliance and clinical quality implementation. PEP did not modify these relationships. Conclusions: Having quality as an item on the executive board's agenda allows them to review and discuss quality performance more often in order to improve their hospital's quality management. Generally, and as this study found, having quality on the executive board's agenda matters.

Objective. The 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. Design. It is a multi-level, cross-sectional, mixed-method study. Setting and Participants. As 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 Measures. Three 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). Results. Positive 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. Conclusion. By 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.

OBJECTIVE: To 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.DESIGN: Mixed-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 PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-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.RESULTS: Potassium 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).CONCLUSIONS: There 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.

The study, "Deepening our Understanding of Quality Improvement in Europe (DUQuE)" has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no 241822. Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no 241822. 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 qualitymanagers (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.

The study, "Deepening our Understanding of Quality Improvement in Europe (DUQuE)" has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 241822. Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 241822. Objective: Clinical management is hypothesized to be critical for hospital management and hospital performance. The aims of this study were to develop and validate professional involvement scales for measuring the level of clinical management by physicians and nurses in European hospitals. Design: Testing of validity and reliability of scales derived from a questionnaire of 21 items was developed on the basis of a previous study and expert opinion and administered in a cross-sectional seven-country research project 'Deepening our Understanding of Quality improvement in Europe' (DUQuE). Setting and Participants: A sample of 3386 leading physicians and nurses working in 188 hospitals located in Czech Republic, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Turkey. Main Outcome Measures: Validity and reliability of professional involvement scales and subscales. Results: Psychometric analysis yielded four subscales for leading physicians: (i) Administration and budgeting, (ii) Managing medical practice, (iii) Strategic management and (iv) Managing nursing practice. Only the first three factors applied well to the nurses. Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency ranged from 0.74 to 0.86 for the physicians, and from 0.61 to 0.81 for the nurses. Except for the 0.74 correlation between 'Administration and budgeting' and 'Managing medical practice' among physicians, all inter-scale correlations were

The study, "Deepening our Understanding of Quality Improvement in Europe (DUQuE)" has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 241822. Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 241822. Objective: To 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. Design: We 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 participants: A 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 Measures. Four 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). Results: Participating 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. Conclusion: The 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).

© The Author 2014. Objective: To investigate the relationship between ISO 9001 certification, healthcare accreditation and quality management in European hospitals. Design: A mixed method multi-level cross-sectional design in seven countries. External teams assessed clinical services on the use of quality management systems, illustrated by four clinical pathways. Setting and Participants: Seventy-three acute care hospitals with a total of 291 services managing acute myocardial infarction (AMI), hip fracture, stroke and obstetric deliveries, in Czech Republic, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Turkey. Main Outcome Measure: Four composite measures of quality and safety [specialized expertise and responsibility (SER), evidence-based organization of pathways (EBOP), patient safety strategies (PSS) and clinical review (CR)] applied to four pathways. Results: Accreditation in isolation showed benefits in AMI and stroke more than in deliveries and hip fracture; the greatest significant association was with CR in stroke. Certification in isolation showed little benefit in AMI but had more positive association with the other conditions; greatest significant association was in PSS with stroke. The combination of accreditation and certification showed least benefit in EBOP, but significant benefits in SER (AMI), in PSS (AMI, hip fracture and stroke) and in CR (AMI and stroke). Conclusions: Accreditation and certification are positively associated with clinical leadership, systems for patient safety and clinical review, but not with clinical practice. Both systems promote structures and processes, which support patient safety and clinical organization but have limited effect on the delivery of evidence-based patient care. Further analysis of DUQuE data will explore the association of certification and accreditation with clinical outcomes.

The study, "Deepening our Understanding of Quality Improvement in Europe (DUQuE)" has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 241822. Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 241822. Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and validate an index to assess the implementation of quality management systems (QMSs) in European countries. Design: Questionnaire development was facilitated through expert opinion, literature review and earlier empirical research. A cross-sectional online survey utilizing the questionnaire was undertaken between May 2011 and February 2012. We used psychometric methods to explore the factor structure, reliability and validity of the instrument. Setting and participants. As part of the Deepening our Understanding of Quality improvement in Europe (DUQuE) project, we invited a random sample of 188 hospitals in 7 countries. The quality managers of these hospitals were the main respondents. Main Outcome Measure. The extent of implementation of QMSs. Results: Factor analysis yielded nine scales, which were combined to build the Quality Management Systems Index. Cronbach's reliability coefficients were satisfactory (ranging from 0.72 to 0.82) for eight scales and low for one scale (0.48). Corrected item-total correlations provided adequate evidence of factor homogeneity. Inter-scale correlations showed that every factor was related, but also distinct, and added to the index. Construct validity testing showed that the index was related to recent measures of quality. Participating hospitals attained a mean value of 19.7 (standard deviation of 4.7) on the index that theoretically ranged from 0 to 27. Conclusion: Assessing QMSs across Europe has the potential to help policy-makers and other stakeholders to compare hospitals and focus on the most important areas for improvement.

In 2009, we launched Deepening our Understanding of Quality Improvement in Europe (DUQuE), an ambitious study on the effectiveness of quality improvement systems of hospitals in eight European countries. We believe this to be the most comprehensive and detailed study of quality improvement systems to date in terms of the a priori development of a coherent theory to guide the measurement and analytical strategy, the diverse countries involved and the range of standardized data collected (including surveys, chart reviews, administrative data and organizational audit). The papers published in this supplement describe the key findings of the project so far [1]. Here we discuss the overarching lessons emerging from the study. Without the relentless efforts of healthcare professionals and patients to gather data, research on quality improvement would not be possible. Despite the demanding workload of the study, response rates and completion of data collection have been exceptional, reflecting the efforts of country and hospital coordinators. However, there were some lessons about feasibility as the field test was complex and challenging for two reasons. First, in some countries an increasing ‘quality burn-out’ (where professionals are overwhelmed by existing requirements to document and monitor aspects of quality and safety) made it difficult to motivate staff to take on yet another project. Secondly, restrictive research ethics criteria (appropriate for interventional studies, but questionable for observational research) led to substantial delays in advancing the study. These are serious issues of relevance for any …