Search

The imperative for all healthcare professionals to partake in quality improvement (QI) has resulted in the development of QI education programs with participants from different professional backgrounds. However, there is limited empirical and theoretical examination as to why, when and how interprofessional and multiprofessional education occurs in QI and the outcomes of these approaches. This paper reports on a qualitative collective case study of interprofessional and multiprofessional education in three longitudinal QI education programs. We conducted 58 interviews with learners, QI project coaches, program directors and institutional leads and 135 h of observations of in-class education sessions, and collected relevant documents such as course syllabi and handouts. We used an interpretive thematic analysis using a conventional and directed content analysis approach. In the directed content approach, we used sociology of professions theory with particular attention to professional socialization, hierarchies and boundaries in QI, to understand the ways in which individuals' professional backgrounds informed the planning and experiences of the QI education programs. Findings demonstrated that both interprofessional and multiprofessional education approaches were being used to achieve different education objectives. While each approach demonstrated positive learning and practice outcomes, tensions related to the different ways in which professional groups are engaging in QI, power dynamics between professional groups, and disconnects between curricula and practice existed. Further conceptual clarity is essential for a more informed discussion about interprofessional and multiprofessional education approaches in QI and explicit attention is needed to professional processes and tensions, to optimize the impact of education on practice.

Background: Although patients' and care partners' perspectives on patient safety can guide health care learning and improvements, this information remains underutilized. Efforts to leverage this valuable data require challenging the narrow focus of safety as the absence of harm. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to gain a broader insight into how patients and care partners perceive and experience safety. Methods: We used a mixed-methods approach that included a literature review and interviews and focus groups with patients, care partners, and health care providers. An emergent coding schema was developed from triangulation of the 2 data sets. Results: Two core themes—feeling unsafe and feeling safe—emerged that collectively represent a broader view of safety. Conclusion: Knowledge from patients and care partners about feeling unsafe and safe needs to inform efforts to mitigate harm and promote safety, well-being, and positive outcomes and experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The focus of morbidity and mortality conferences (M&MCs) has shifted to emphasize quality improvement and systems-level care. However, quality improvement initiatives targeting systems-level errors are challenged by learning in M&MCs, which occurs at the individual attendee level and not at the organizational level. Here, we aimed to describe how organizational learning in M&MCs is optimized by particular organizational and team cultures. Methods: A prospective, multiple-case study design was used. Using purposive sampling, three cases covering different medical/ surgical specialties in North America were chosen. Data collection included direct observations of the M&MC, semistructured interviews with key M&MC members, and documentary information. Results: The role of the M&MC in all cases integrated two key concepts: recognition of system-wide trends and learning from error, at an organizational and team level. All cases provided evidence of double-loop learning and used organizational memory strategies to ensure knowledge was retained within the organization. A patient safety culture was linked to the promotion of open communication, fostering learning from adverse events. Conclusion: This study describes three cases of systems-oriented M&MCs that reflected elements of organizational learning theory. The M&MC can therefore provide a context for organizational learning, allowing optimal learning from adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsConsiderable investments have been made to build high‐performing primary care systems in Canada. However, little is known about the extent to which change has occurred over the last decade with implementing programs and policies across all 13 provincial and territorial jurisdictions.There is significant variation in the degree of implementation of structural features of high‐performing primary care systems across Canada. This study provides evidence on the state of primary care reform in Canada and offers insights into the opportunities based on changes that governments elsewhere have made to advance primary care transformation. Context: Despite significant investments to transform primary care, Canada lags behind its peers in providing timely access to regular doctors or places of care, timely access to care, developing interprofessional teams, and communication across health care settings. This study examines changes over the last decade (2012 to 2021) in policies across 13 provincial and territorial jurisdictions that address the structural features of high‐performing primary care systems. Methods: A multiple comparative case study approach was used to explore changes in primary care delivery across 13 Canadian jurisdictions. Each case consisted of (1) qualitative interviews with academics, provincial health care leaders, and health care professionals and (2) a literature review of policies and innovations. Data for each case were thematically analyzed within and across cases, using 12 structural features of high‐performing primary care systems to describe each case and assess changes over time. Findings: The most significant changes include adopting electronic medical records, investments in quality improvement training and support, and developing interprofessional teams. Progress was more limited in implementing primary care governance mechanisms, system coordination, patient enrollment, and payment models. The rate of change was slowest for patient engagement, leadership development, performance measurement, research capacity, and systematic evaluation of innovation. Conclusions: Progress toward building high‐performing primary care systems in Canada has been slow and variable, with limited change in the organization and delivery of primary care. Canada's experience can inform innovation internationally by demonstrating how preexisting policy legacies constrain the possibilities for widespread primary care reform, with progress less pronounced in the attributes that impact physician autonomy. To accelerate primary care transformation in Canada and abroad, a national strategy and performance measurement framework is needed based on meaningful engagement of patients and other stakeholders. This must be accompanied by targeted funding investments and building strong data infrastructure for performance measurement to support rigorous research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The Measurement and Monitoring of Safety Framework (MMSF) aims to move beyond a narrow focus on measurement and past harmful events as the major focus for safety in healthcare organisations. There is limited evidence of MMSF implementation and impact. Objective We aimed to examine participants' perspectives and experiences to increase understanding of the adaptive work of implementing the MMSF through a learning collaborative programme in diverse healthcare contexts across Canada. Methods The Collaborative consisted of 11 teams from seven provinces. We conducted a qualitative study involving interviews with 36 participants, observations of 5 sites and learning sessions, and collection of documents. Results Collaborative sessions and coaching allowed participants to explore reliability, sensitivity to operations, anticipation and preparedness, and integration and learning, in addition to past harm, and move beyond a project and measurement oriented safety approach. Participants noted the importance of time dedicated to engaging stakeholders in talk about MMSF concepts and their significance to their settings, prior to moving to implementing the Framework into practice. While participants generally started with a small number of ways of integrating the MMSF into practice such as rounds or huddles, many teams continued to experiment with incorporating the MMSF into a range of practices. Participants reported changes in thinking about safety, discussions and behaviours, which were perceived to impact healthcare processes. However, participants also reported challenges to sharing the Framework broadly and moving beyond its surface implementation, and difficulties with its sustained and widespread use given misalignments with existing quality and safety processes. Conclusion The MMSF requires a dramatic departure from traditional safety strategies that focus on discrete problems and emphasise measurement. MMSF implementation requires extensive discussion, coaching and experimentation. Future implementation should consider engaging local leaders and coaches and an organisation or system approach to enable broader reach and systemic change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Healthcare leaders look to high-reliability organisations (HROs) for strategies to improve safety, despite questions about how to translate these strategies into practice. Weick and Sutcliffe describe five principles exhibited by HROs. Interventions aiming to foster these principles are common in healthcare; however, there have been few examinations of the perceptions of those who have planned or experienced these efforts. Objective This single-site qualitative study explores how healthcare professionals understand and enact the HRO principles in response to an HRO-inspired hospital-wide safety programme. Methods We interviewed 71 participants representing hospital executives, programme leadership, and staff and physicians from three clinical services. We observed and collected data from unit and hospital-wide quality and safety meetings and activities. We used thematic analysis to code and analyse the data. Results Participants reported enactment of the HRO principles 'preoccupation with failure', 'reluctance to simplify interpretations' and 'sensitivity to operations', and described the programme as adding legitimacy, training, and support. However, the programme was more often targeted at, and taken up by, nurses compared with other groups. Participants were less able to identify interventions that supported the HRO principles 'commitment to resilience' and 'deference to expertise' and reported limited examples of changes in practices related to these principles. Moreover, we identified inconsistent, and even conflicting, understanding of concepts related to the HRO principles, often related to social and professional norms and practices. Finally, an individualised rather than systemic approach hindered collective actions underlying high reliability. Conclusion Our findings demonstrate that the safety programme supported some HRO principles more than others, and was targeted at, and perceived differently across professional groups leading to inconsistent understanding and enactments of the principles across the organisation. Combining HRO-inspired interventions with more targeted attention to each of the HRO principles could produce greater, more consistent high-reliability practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and family engagement (PE) in healthcare planning and improvement achieves beneficial outcomes and is widely advocated, but a lack of resources is a critical barrier. Little prior research studied how organizations support engagement specifically in hospitals.Objective: We explored what constitutes hospital capacity for engagement.Methods: We conducted descriptive qualitative interviews and complied with criteria for rigour and reporting in qualitative research. We interviewed patient/family advisors, engagement managers, clinicians and executives at hospitals with high engagement activity, asking them to describe essential resources or processes. We used content analysis and constant comparison to identify themes and corresponding quotes and interpreted findings by mapping themes to two existing frameworks of PE capacity not specific to hospitals.Results: We interviewed 40 patient/family advisors, patient engagement managers, clinicians and corporate executives from nine hospitals (two < 100 beds, four 100 + beds, three teaching). Four over-arching themes about capacity considered essential included resources, training, organizational commitment and staff support. Views were similar across participant and hospital groups. Resources included funding and people dedicated to PE and technology to enable communication and collaboration. Training encompassed initial orientation and project-specific training for patient/family advisors and orientation for new staff and training for existing staff on how to engage with patient/family advisors. Organizational commitment included endorsement from the CEO and Board, commitment from staff and continuous evaluation and improvement. Staff support included words and actions that conveyed value for the role and input of patient/family advisors. The blended, non-hospital-specific framework captured all themes. Hospitals of all types varied in the availability of funding dedicated to PE. In particular, reimbursement of expenses and compensation for time and contributions were not provided to patient/family advisors. In addition to skilled engagement managers, the role of clinician or staff champions was viewed as essential.Conclusion: The findings build on prior research that largely focused on PE in individual clinical care or research or in primary care planning and improvement. The findings closely aligned with existing frameworks of organizational capacity for PE not specific to hospital settings, which suggests that hospitals could use the blended framework to plan, evaluate and improve their PE programs. Further research is needed to yield greater insight into how to promote and enable compensation for patient/family advisors and the role of clinician or staff champions in supporting PE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Substantial expenditures on health care safety programs have been justified by their goal of reducing health care associated–harm (adverse events), but adverse event rates have not changed over the past 4 decades. The objective of this study is to describe hospital-level factors that are relevant to safety in Canadian hospitals and the impact of these factors on hospital adverse events. Methods: This is a protocol for a national cohort study to describe the association between hospital-level factors and adverse events. We will survey at least 90 (35%) Canadian hospitals to describe 4 safety-relevant domains, chosen based on the literature and expert consultation, namely patient safety culture, safety strategies, staffing, and volume and capacity. We will retrospectively identify hospital adverse events from a national data source. We will evaluate organization-level factors using established scales and a survey, codesigned by the study team and hospital leaders. Hospital leaders, clinical unit leaders and front-line staff will complete the surveys once a year for 3 years, with an anticipated start date of winter 2022. We will use national health administrative data to estimate the rate and type of hospital adverse events corresponding to each 1-year survey period. Interpretation: Analysis of data from this project will describe hospital organizational factors that are relevant to safety and help identify organizational initiatives that improve hospital patient safety. In addition to biyearly reports to the leaders of the participating hospitals, we have a multifaceted and tailored dissemination strategy that includes integrating the knowledge users into the study team to increase the likelihood that our study will lead to improved hospital patient safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]