Search

Objective: This study aimed to refine and validate a tool to measure safety culture and leadership in Australian hospitals.Design: The clinician safety culture and leadership questionnaire was constructed by combining and refining the following two previously validated scales: Safety Attitudes Questionnaire and the Leadership Effectiveness Survey. Statistical processes were used to explore the factor structure, reliability, validity and descriptive statistics of the new instrument.Setting: Thirty-two large Australian public hospitals.Participants: 1382 clinicians (doctors, nurses and allied health professionals).Main Outcome Measure(s): Descriptive statistics, structure and validity of clinician safety culture and leadership scale.Results: We received 1334 valid responses from participants. The distribution of ratings was left-skewed, with a small ceiling effect, meaning that scores were clustered toward the high end of the scale. Using confirmatory factor analysis, we confirmed the structure of the three scales as a combined measure of safety culture and leadership. The data were divided into equal calibration and validation datasets. For the calibration dataset, the Chi-square: df ratio was 4.4, the root mean square error of approximation RMSEA (a measure of spread of the data) was 0.071, the standardized root mean square residual SRMR (an absolute measure of the fit of the data) was 0.058 and the Confirmatory Fit Index (CFI) (another test confirming the fit of the data) was 0.82; while none of the indices suggested good fit, all but CFI fell within acceptable thresholds. All factors demonstrated adequate internal consistency and construct reliability, as desired. All three domains achieved discriminant validity through cross-loadings, meaning that the three domains were determined to be independent constructs. Results for the validation dataset were effectively identical to those found in the calibration dataset.Conclusions: While the model may benefit from additional refinement, we have validated the tool for measuring clinician safety culture and leadership in our Australian sample. The DUQuA safety culture and leadership scale can be used by Australian hospitals to assess clinician safety culture and leadership, and is readily modifiable for other health systems depending on their needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the principles of benchmarking in healthcare and how benchmarking can contribute to practice improvement and improved health outcomes for patients. It uses the Deepening our Understanding of Quality in Australia (DUQuA) study published in this Supplement and DUQuA's predecessor in Europe, the Deepening our Understanding of Quality improvement in Europe (DUQuE) study, as models. Benchmarking is where the performances of institutions or individuals are compared using agreed indicators or standards. The rationale for benchmarking is that institutions will respond positively to being identified as a low outlier or desire to be or stay as a high performer, or both, and patients will be empowered to make choices to seek care at institutions that are high performers. Benchmarking often begins with a conceptual framework that is based on a logic model. Such a framework can drive the selection of indicators to measure performance, rather than their selection being based on what is easy to measure. A Donabedian range of indicators can be chosen, including structure, process and outcomes, created around multiple domains or specialties. Indicators based on continuous variables allow organizations to understand where their performance is within a population, and their interdependencies and associations can be understood. Benchmarking should optimally target providers, in order to drive them towards improvement. The DUQuA and DUQuE studies both incorporated some of these principles into their design, thereby creating a model of how to incorporate robust benchmarking into large-scale health services research. [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: 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]

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: The aim of this study was to develop and refine indices to measure organization and care pathway-level quality management systems in Australian hospitals.Design: A questionnaire survey and audit tools were derived from instruments validated as part of the Deepening Our Understanding of Quality improvement in Europe (DUQuE) study, adapted for Australian hospitals through expert opinion. Statistical processes were used to explore the factor structure, reliability and non-redundancy and descriptive statistics of the scales.Setting: Thirty-two large Australian public hospitals.Participants: Audit of quality management processes at organization-level and care pathway processes at department level for three patient conditions (acute myocardial infarction (AMI), hip fracture and stroke) and senior quality manager, at each of the 32 participating hospitals.Main Outcome Measure(s): The degree of quality management evident at organization and care pathway levels.Results: Analysis yielded seven quality systems and strategies scales. The three hospital-level measures were: the Quality Management Systems Index (QMSI), the Quality Management Compliance Index (QMCI) and the Clinical Quality Implementation Index (CQII). The four department-level measures were: Specialised Expertise and Responsibility (SER), Evidence-Based Organisation of Pathways (EBOP), Patient Safety Strategies (PSS) and Clinical Review (CR). For QMCI, and for seven out of eight subscales in QMSI, adequate internal consistency (Cronbach's $\alpha$ >0.8) was achieved. For CQII, lack of variation and ceiling effects in the data resulted in very low internal consistency scores, but items were retained for theoretical reasons. Internal consistency was high for CR (Cronbach's $\alpha$ 0.74-0.88 across the three conditions), and this was supported by all item-total correlations exceeding the desired threshold. For EBOP, Cronbach's $\alpha$ was acceptable for hip fracture (0.80) and stroke (0.76), but only moderate for AMI (0.52). PSS and SER scales were retained for theoretical reasons, although internal consistencies were only moderate (SER) to poor (PSS).Conclusions: The Deepening our Understanding of Quality in Australia (DUQuA) organization and department scales can be used by Australian hospital managers to assess and measure improvement in quality management at organization and department levels within their hospitals and are readily modifiable for other health systems depending on their needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]