Search

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.

BACKGROUND: Given the amount of time and resources invested in implementing quality programs in hospitals, few studies have investigated their clinical impact and what strategies could be recommended to enhance its effectiveness.OBJECTIVE: To assess variations in clinical practice and explore associations with hospital- and department-level quality management systems.DESIGN: Multicenter, multilevel cross-sectional study.SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-three acute care hospitals with 276 departments managing acute myocardial infarction, deliveries, hip fracture, and stroke in seven countries.INTERVENTION: None.MEASURES: Predictor variables included 3 hospital- and 4 department-level quality measures. Six measures were collected through direct observation by an external surveyor and one was assessed through a questionnaire completed by hospital quality managers. Dependent variables included 24 clinical practice indicators based on case note reviews covering the 4 conditions (acute myocardial infarction, deliveries, hip fracture and stroke). A directed acyclic graph was used to encode relationships between predictors, outcomes, and covariates and to guide the choice of covariates to control for confounding.RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Data were provided on 9021 clinical records by 276 departments in 73 hospitals. There were substantial variations in compliance with the 24 clinical practice indicators. Weak associations were observed between hospital quality systems and 4 of the 24 indicators, but on analyzing department-level quality systems, strong associations were observed for 8 of the 11 indicators for acute myocardial infarction and stroke. Clinical indicators supported by higher levels of evidence were more frequently associated with quality systems and activities.CONCLUSIONS: There are significant gaps between recommended standards of care and clinical practice in a large sample of hospitals. Implementation of department-level quality strategies was significantly associated with good clinical practice. Further research should aim to develop clinically relevant quality standards for hospital departments, which appear to be more effective than generic hospital-wide quality systems.

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.

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

© 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.

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 …

This report is concerned with 'standards of quality and safety' within health and social care systems. Care standards are intended to support efforts in maintaining and improving the quality of care; they have been developed across countries, although the ways in which they are implemented and applied differs between nations. Taking a range of six countries, we review the regulatory mechanisms that have been implemented to ensure that essential standards of care are applied and are being adhered to, and consider the range of policy instruments used to encourage and ensure continuous quality improvement. We report on Australia, England, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and the USA. The report is intended to inform policy thinking for the Department of Health and others in developing the regulation of safety and quality of health and social care in England. It was prepared as part of the project 'An "On-call" Facility for International Healthcare Comparisons' funded by the Department of Health in England through its Policy Research Programme.

In the Netherlands, the policy on care for prisoners who are addicted to opiates is still heterogeneous. The recent guidelines entitled 'Medicinal care for drug addicts in penal institutions' should contribute towards unambiguous and more evidence-based treatment for this group. In addition, it should improve and bring the care pathways within judicial institutions and mainstream healthcare more into line with one another.- Each rational course of medicinal treatment will initially be continued in the penal institution. - In penal institutions the help on offer is mainly focused on abstinence from illegal drugs while at the same time limiting the damage caused to the health of the individual user. - Methadone is regarded at the first choice for maintenance therapy. For patient safety, this is best given in liquid form in sealed cups of 5 mg/ml once daily in the morning. - Recently a combination preparation containing buprenorphine and naloxone - a complete opiate antagonist - has become available.- On discontinuation of opiate maintenance treatment intensive follow-up care is necessary. During this period there is considerable risk of a potentially lethal overdose. Detoxification should be coupled with psychosocial or medicinal intervention aimed at preventing relapse- Naltrexone is currently the only available opiate antagonist for preventing relapse. - In those addicted to opiates, who also take benzodiazepines without any indication, it is strongly recommended that these be reduced and discontinued. This can be achieved by converting the regular dosage into the equivalent in diazepam and then reducing this dosage by a maximum of 25% a week