Search

Objective: This study aimed to explore the associations between the organization-level quality arrangements, improvement and implementation and department-level safety culture and leadership measures across 32 large Australian hospitals.Design: Quantitative observational study, using linear and multi-level modelling to identify relationships between quality management systems and clinician safety culture and leadership.Setting: Thirty-two large Australian public hospitals.Participants: Quality audit at organization level, senior quality manager at each participating hospital, 1382 clinicians (doctors, nurses and allied health professionals).Main Outcome Measures: Associations between organization-level quality measures and department-level clinician measures of teamwork climate, safety climate and leadership for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), hip fracture and stroke treatment conditions.Results: We received 1332 valid responses from participants. The quality management systems index (QMSI, a questionnaire-based measure of the hospitals' quality management structures) was 'positively' associated with all three department-level scales in the stroke department, with safety culture and leadership in the emergency department, but with none of the three scales in the AMI and hip fracture departments. The quality management compliance index (QMCI, an external audit-based measure of the quality improvement activities) was 'negatively' associated with teamwork climate and safety climate in AMI departments, after controlling for QMSI, but not in other departments. There was no association between QMCI and leadership in any department, after controlling for QMSI, and there was no association between the clinical quality implementation index (CQII, an external audit-based measure of the level of implementation of quality activities) and any of the three department-level scales in any of the four departments, after controlling for both QMSI and QMCI.Conclusions: The influence of organization-level quality management systems on clinician safety culture and leadership varied depending on the hospital department, suggesting that whilst there was some consistency on patient safety attitudes and behaviours throughout the organizations, there were also other factors at play. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We aimed to examine whether Emergency Department (ED) quality strategies, safety culture and leadership were associated with patient-level outcomes, after controlling for other organization-level factors, in 32 large Australian hospitals.Design: Quantitative observational study, using linear and multi-level modelling to identify relationships between quality management systems at organization level; quality strategies at ED level for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), hip fracture and stroke; clinician safety culture and leadership and patient-level outcomes of waiting time and length of stay.Setting: Thirty-two large Australian public hospitals.Participants: Audit of quality management processes at organization and ED levels, senior quality manager at each of the 32 participating hospitals, 394 ED clinicians (doctors, nurses and allied health professionals).Main Outcome Measure(s): Within the multi-level model, associations were assessed between organization-level quality measures and ED quality strategies; organization-level quality measures and ED quality strategies and ward-level clinician measures of teamwork climate (TC), safety climate (SC) and leadership for AMI, hip fracture and stroke treatment conditions; and organization-level quality measures and ED quality strategies and ward-level clinician measures of TC, SC and leadership, and ED waiting time and length of stay (performance).Results: We found seven statistically significant associations between organization-level quality systems and ED-level quality strategies; four statistically significant associations between quality systems and strategies and ED safety culture and leadership; and nine statistically significant associations between quality systems and strategies and ED safety culture and leadership, and ED waiting time and length of stay.Conclusions: Organization-level quality structures influence ED-level quality strategies, clinician safety culture and leadership and, ultimately, waiting time and length of stay for patients. By focusing only on time-based measures of ED performance we risk punishing EDs that perform well on patient safety measures. We need to better understand the trade-offs between implementing safety culture and quality strategies and improving patient flow in the ED, and to place more emphasis on other ED performance measures in addition to time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Little is known about the influence that hospital quality systems have on quality at department level, in Australia and elsewhere. This study assessed the relationships between organizational-level quality management systems, and the extent to which hospital-level quality management systems and department-level quality management strategies are related.Design: A multi-level, cross-sectional, mixed-method study.Setting and Participants: As part of the Deepening our Understanding of Quality in Australia (DUQuA) project, we invited all large hospitals in Australia (~200 or more beds) which provided acute myocardial infarction (AMI), hip fracture and stroke care. The quality managers of these hospitals were the respondents for one of seven measures of hospital quality management systems and strategies. Data across the six remaining measures were collected through site visits by external surveyors assessing the participating hospitals.Main Outcome Measures: Relationships were assessed between three organization-level quality management system measures: a self-report measure assessing organization-level quality activities (quality management systems index, QMSI); externally assessed organization-level compliance to procedures used to plan, monitor and improve quality of care (quality management compliance index, QMCI); and externally assessed implementation of quality systems (clinical quality implementation index, CQII). Associations were also assessed between organization-level quality management systems and department-level quality management strategies: how clinical responsibilities are assigned for a particular condition; whether department organization processes are organized to facilitate evidence-based care recommendations; compliance with selected recommendations of international agencies; and whether clinical reviews are performed systematically.Results: Of 78 invited hospitals, 32 participated in the study. QMSI was positively associated with QMCI and CQII, but after controlling for QMSI, no relationship was found between QMCI and CQII. There appears to be a cluster of relationships between QMSI and department-level measures, but this was not consistent across all departments.Conclusion: This is the first national study undertaken in Australia to assess relationships within and between organization-level and department-level quality management systems. These quality management system tools align with many components of accreditation standards and may be useful for hospitals in continuously monitoring and driving improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The Deepening our Understanding of Quality in Australia (DUQuA) project is a multisite, multi-level, cross-sectional study of 32 of the largest hospitals in Australia. This overview examines relationships between (i) organization-level quality management systems and department-level quality management strategies and (ii) patient-level measures (clinical treatment processes, patient-reported perceptions of care and clinical outcomes) within Australian hospitals.Design: We examined hospital quality improvement structures, processes and outcomes, collecting data at organization, department and patient levels for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), hip fracture and stroke. Data sources included surveys of quality managers, clinicians and patients, hospital visits, medical record reviews and national databases. Outcomes data and patient admissions data were analysed. Relationships between measures were evaluated using multi-level models. We based the methods on the Deepening our Understanding of Quality Improvement in Europe (DUQuE) framework, extending that work in parts and customizing the design to Australian circumstances.Setting, Participants and Outcome Measures: The 32 hospitals, containing 119 participating departments, provided wide representation across metropolitan, inner and outer regional Australia. We obtained 31 quality management, 1334 clinician and 857 patient questionnaires, and conducted 2401 medical record reviews and 151 external assessments. External data via a secondary source comprised 14 460 index patient admissions across 14 031 individual patients. Associations between hospital, Emergency Department (ED) and department-level systems and strategies and five patient-level outcomes were assessed: 19 of 165 associations (11.5%) were statistically significant, 12 of 79 positive associations (15.2%) and 7 of 85 negative associations (8.2%).Results: We did not find clear relationships between hospital-level quality management systems, ED or department quality strategies and patient-level outcomes. ED-level clinical reviews were related to adherence to clinical practice guidelines for AMI, hip fracture and stroke, but in different directions. The results, when considered alongside the DUQuE results, are suggestive that front line interventions may be more influential than department-level interventions when shaping quality of care and that multi-pronged strategies are needed. Benchmark reports were sent to each participating hospital, stimulating targeted quality improvement activities.Conclusions: We found no compelling relationships between the way care is organized and the quality of care across three targeted patient-level outcome conditions. The study was cross-sectional, and thus we recommend that the relationships studied should be assessed for changes across time. Tracking care longitudinally so that quality improvement activities are monitored and fed back to participants is an important initiative that should be given priority as health systems strive to develop their capacity for quality improvement over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]