Search

Objective: The aim was to translate the findings of the QUASER study into a reflective, dialogic guide to help senior hospital leaders develop an organization wide QI strategy. Design: The QUASER study involved in depth ethnographic research into QI work and practices in two hospitals in each of five European countries. Three translational stakeholder workshops were held to review research findings and advise on the design of the Guide. An extended iterative process involving researchers from each participant country was then used to populate the Guide. Setting: The research was carried out in two hospitals in each of five European countries. Participants: In total, 389 interviews with healthcare practitioners and 803 hours of observations. Intervention: None. Main outcome measure: None. Results: The QUASER Hospital Guide was designed for leadership teams to diagnose their organization’s strengths and weaknesses in the eight QI challenges. The Guide supports organizational dialogue about QI challenges, enables leaders to share perspectives, and helps teams to develop solutions to their situated problems. The Guide includes extensive examples of QI strategies drawn from the data and is published online and on paper. Conclusions: The QUASER Hospital Guide is empirically based, draws on a dialogical approach to Organizational Development and complexity science and can facilitate hospital leadership teams to identify the best solutions for their organization.

Objectives: Given the impact of the global economic crisis, delivering better health care with limited finance grows more challenging. Through the lens of institutional theory, this paper explores pressures experienced by hospital leaders to improve quality and constrain spending, focusing on how they respond to these often competing demands. Methods: An in-depth, multilevel analysis of health care quality policies and practices in five European countries including longitudinal case studies in a purposive sample of ten hospitals. Results: How hospitals responded to the financial and quality challenges was dependent upon three factors: the coherence of demands from external institutions; managerial competence to align external demands with an overall quality improvement strategy, and managerial stability. Hospital leaders used diverse strategies and practices to manage conflicting external pressures. Conclusions: The development of hospital leaders’ sk

__Abstract__ Background: Conceptualization of quality of care - in terms of what individuals, groups and organizations include in their meaning of quality, is an unexplored research area. It is important to understand how quality is conceptualised as a means to successfully implement improvement efforts and bridge potential disconnect in language about quality between system levels, professions, and clinical services. The aim is therefore to explore and compare conceptualization of quality among national bodies (macro level), senior hospital managers (meso level), and professional groups within clinical micro systems (micro

Purpose. Being able to compare hospitals in terms of quality and safety between countries is important for a number of reasons. For example, the 2011 European Union directive on patients’ rights to cross-border health care places a requirement on all member states to provide patients with comparable information on health-care quality, so that they can make an informed choice. Here, we report on the feasibility of using common process and outcome indicators to compare hospitals for quality and safety in five countries (England, Portugal, The Netherlands, Sweden and Norway). Main Challenges Identified. The cross-country comparison identified the following seven challenges with respect to comparing the quality of hospitals across Europe: different indicators are collected in each country; different definitions of the same indicators are used; different mandatory versus voluntary data collection requirements are in place; different types of organizations oversee data collection; different levels of aggregation of data exist (country, region and hospital); different levels of public access to data exist; and finally, hospital accreditation and licensing systems differ in each country. Conclusion. Our findings indicate that if patients and policymakers are to compare the quality and safety of hospitals across Europe, then further work is urgently needed to agree the way forward. Until then, patients will not be able to make informed choices about where they receive their health care in different countries, and some governments will remain in the dark about the quality and safety of care available to their citizens as compared to that available in neighbouring countries.

Background: although there is a wealth of information available about quality improvement tools and techniques in healthcare there is little understanding about overcoming the challenges of day-to-day implementation in complex organisations like hospitals. The 'Quality and Safety in Europe by Research' (QUASER) study will investigate how hospitals implement, spread and sustain quality improvement, including the difficulties they face and how they overcome them. The overall aim of the study is to exp