Search

Healthcare organisations vary in the degree to which they implement quality and safety systems and strategies. Large-scale cross-sectional studies have been implemented to explore whether this variation is associated with outcomes relevant at the patient level. The Deepening our Understanding of Quality in Australia (DUQuA) study draws from earlier research of this type, to examine these issues in 32 Australian hospitals. This paper outlines the key implementation and analysis challenges faced by DUQuA. Many of the logistical difficulties of implementing DUQuA derived from compliance with the administratively complex and time-consuming Australian ethics and governance system designed principally to protect patients involved in clinical trials, rather than for low-risk health services research. The complexity of these processes is compounded by a lack of organizational capacity for multi-site health services research; research is expected to be undertaken in addition to usual work, not as part of it. These issues likely contributed to a relatively low recruitment rate for hospitals (41% of eligible hospitals). Both sets of issues need to be addressed by health services researchers, policymakers and healthcare administrators, if health services research is to flourish. Large-scale research also inevitably involves multiple measurements. The timing for applying these measures needs to be coherent, to maximise the likelihood of finding real relationships between quality and safety systems and strategies, and patient outcomes; this timing was less than ideal in DUQuA, in part due to administrative delays. Other issues that affected our study include low response rates for measures requiring recruitment of clinicians and patients, missing data and a design that necessarily included multiple statistical comparisons. We discuss how these were addressed. Successful completion of these projects relies on mutual and ongoing commitment, and two-way communication between the research team and hospital staff at all levels. This will help to ensure that enthusiasm and engagement are established and maintained. [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: 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]