Nursing home staff's views on quality improvement interventions: a follow-up study

Ongoing problems with nursing home care mandates understanding nursing home staff's perspectives on innovative quality improvement programs. This follow-up study used focus groups to examine the experiences of staff who participated in a clinical trial that involved Quality Indicator (QI) feedback reports, quality improvement training, and APN consultation. The authors found that QI reports provided staff with a benchmark to judge their care and a means to track problems; APN consultation was essential for staff to learn best practices; and staff questioned the validity of the QI reports, which hindered them from seeking new solutions to problems identified in the QI reports. Findings indicate that innovative QI programs and APN consultation can positively influence nursing home quality improvement efforts and improve care.     

Do the effects of quality improvement for depression care differ for men and women? Results of a group-level randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine whether a quality improvement (QI) program for depression care is effective for both men and women and whether their responses differed. DESIGN: We instituted a group-level, randomized, controlled trial in 46 primary care practices within 6 managed care organizations. Clinics were randomized to usual care or to 1 of 2 QI programs that supported QI teams, provider training, nurse assessment and patient education, and resources to support medication management (QI-Meds) or psychotherapy (QI-Therapy). PATIENTS: There were 1299 primary care patients who screened positive for depression and completed at least one questionnaire during the course of 24 months. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were probable depression, mental health-related quality of life (HRQOL), work status, use of any antidepressant or psychotherapy, and probable unmet need, which was defined as having probable depression but not receiving probable appropriate care. RESULTS: Women were more likely to receive depression care than men over time, regardless of intervention status. The effect of QI-Meds on probable unmet need was delayed for men, and the magnitude of the effect was significantly greater for men than for women; therefore, this intervention reduced differences in probable unmet need between men and women. QI reduced the likelihood of probable depression equally for men and women. QI-Therapy had a greater impact on mental HRQOL and work status for men than for women. QI-Meds improved these outcomes for women. CONCLUSIONS: To affect both quality and outcomes of care for men and women while reducing gender differences, QI programs may need to facilitate access to both medication management and effective psychotherapy for depression.     

Developing a practice-based research network by integrating quality improvement: challenges and ingredients for success

Improving patient outcomes in community-based settings is the goal of both the Clinical Translational Science Award program and practice-based quality improvement (QI) programs. Given this common goal, integrating QI and outcomes research is a promising strategy for developing, implementing, and evaluating clinical interventions. This article describes the challenges and strengths illuminated by the conduct of a combined research/QI study in a nascent practice-based research network. Challenges include research's exclusion of clinic patients who might benefit from the intervention; QI programs' less uniform approach to intervention implementation; and the need for both academic and clinically relevant products and publications. A major strength is the increased likelihood of both engaging clinical practices in research and developing successful clinical interventions. Required elements for success include identification of enthusiastic clinical research "champions," involvement of researchers with clinical experience, and adequate funding to support both research and clinical resources and dissemination. Combined Ql/research projects in the practice-based research environment have the potential to improve and shorten the cycle from good idea to improved clinical outcomes in real-world settings.     

Qualitätsindikatoren für die Versorgung von Patienten mit Rückenschmerzen

Introduction

Low back pain (LBP) is an epidemiologically and economically relevant health care problem appropriate for quality assurance approaches. Therefore an expert panel (AQUIK) of the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians has proposed three quality indicators (QI) for monitoring the quality of ambulatory care for LBP. The aim of this article is to present and evaluate the proposed QIs.

Material and methods

The three proposed QIs relating to red flags, imaging and sick leave certificates were evaluated with regard to the underpinning evidence, epidemiology and feasibility. Guidelines and original research as well results from surveys and observational studies evaluating adherence to LBP guidelines were used for assessment.

Results

The expert panel concluded that only the recording of red flags is a relevant and feasible QI. Despite a two-stage expert method the epidemiology of LBP, feasibility and existing routine health care data were not sufficiently taken into account. The author’s conclusion differs in two instances. The red flag concept is not sufficiently clinically validated and recordable to be used as a QI. Otherwise imaging is considered a suitable QI given the observed overuse and the availability of billing data.

Conclusion

Deriving valid and pragmatic QI from LBP guidelines for evaluating care for LBP is difficult. The core messages of guidelines are only recommendations with limited precision and transferability to individual patients. For pragmatic reasons definition of an upper or lower proportion of patients receiving a given health care service is recommended instead of tedious individual evaluation. Reasonable estimates can be based on data from research on health care services. Because of this uncertainty QIs should be evaluated before they are used as a steering instrument.     

A unifying framework for improving health care

The quality health care around world is suboptimal. To improve the quality of contemporary health care delivery, advocates have proposed a number of scientific and technical initiatives. All these initiatives, however, have arisen and continue to operate in siloes, resulting in confusion and incommensurability among those concerned with health care improvement. Participants in the quality improvement (QI) space typically stress their own, often narrow, perspective, failing to place QI in context or to acknowledge other approaches. In order to improve delivery of health care, the following is required:

1. Provide a unifying framework for improving health care. We argue this is best done under a Health System Science (HSS) framework but with full understanding that the fundamental principles of HSS are rooted in evidence‐based medicine (EBM) and decision sciences.
2. Understand that QI initiatives are fundamentally local activities. Hence, incentivizing bottom‐up, local QI initiatives would improve health care delivery to a far greater extent than the current top‐down initiatives undertaken in a response to various regulatory mandates.
3. Akin to the “Choosing Wisely” initiative, which challenged professional societies, each institution should identify (a) the extent to which its practices are evidence‐based and (b) the top 5 health care practices or interventions that, at a given institution, represent overuse, underuse, or misuse/error or undermine clinicians' efforts to deliver kind and empathic care.

Providing a framework that can unify the current patchwork of the initiatives would help create a common basis to help align all the existing QI efforts. In addition, thinking small (at local level) may lead to health care quality improvements that national initiatives (thinking big), focused on regulation, competition, or legal requirements, have failed to achieve.     

Randomized trial of quality improvement intervention to improve diabetes care in primary care settings

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of a quality improvement (QI) intervention on the quality of diabetes care at primary care clinics. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Twelve primary care medical practices were matched by size and location and randomized to intervention or control conditions. Intervention clinic staff were trained in a seven-step QI change process to improve diabetes care. Surveys and medical record reviews of 754 patients, surveys of 329 clinic staff, interviews with clinic leaders, and analysis of training session videotapes evaluated compliance with and impact of the intervention. Mixed-model nested analyses compared differences in the quality of diabetes care before and after intervention. RESULTS: All intervention clinics completed at least six steps of the seven-step QI change process in an 18-month period and, compared with control clinics, had broader staff participation in QI activities (P = 0.04), used patient registries more often (P = 0.03), and had better test rates for HbA(1c) (A1C), LDL, and blood pressure (P = 0.02). Other processes of diabetes care were unchanged. The intervention did not improve A1C (P = 0.54), LDL (P = 0.46), or blood pressure (P = 0.69) levels or a composite of these outcomes (P = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: This QI change process was successfully implemented but failed to improve A1C, LDL, or blood pressure levels. Data suggest that to be successful, such a QI change process should direct more attention to specific clinical actions, such as drug intensification and patient activation.     

The Palliative Care—Promoting Access and Improvement of the Cancer Experience (PC-PAICE) Project in India: A Multisite International Quality Improvement Collaborative

Mentors at seven U.S. and Australian academic institutions initially partnered with seven leading Indian academic palliative care and cancer centers in 2017 to undertake a program combining remote and in-person mentorship, didactic instruction, and project-based learning in quality improvement (QI). From its inception in 2017 to 2020, the Palliative Care—Promoting Accesst and Improvement of the Cancer Experience Program conducted three cohorts for capacity building of 22 Indian palliative care and cancer programs. Indian leadership established a Mumbai QI training hub in 2019 with philanthropic support. In 2020, the project which is now named Enable Quality, Improve Patient care - India (EQuIP-India) focuses on both palliative care and cancer teams. EQuIP-India now leads ongoing Indian national collaboratives and training in QI and is integrated into India's National Cancer Grid. Palliative Care—Promoting Accesst and Improvement of the Cancer Experience demonstrates a feasible model of international collaboration and capacity building in palliative care and cancer QI. It is one of the several networked and blended learning approaches with potential for rapid scaling of evidence-based practices.     

Provider's Perspectives on Building Research and Quality Improvement Capacity in Primary Care: A Strategy to Improve Workforce Satisfaction

Objectives

Safety‐net populations are underrepresented in research and quality improvement (QI) studies despite the fact that safety‐net providers are uniquely positioned to engage in translational research. This study aimed to understand the current level of interest in, experience with, predicted career satisfaction associated with, and barriers experienced in conducting research and QI among primary care providers (PCPs) at 18 safety‐net practices in the Boston, Massachusetts area.

Methods

The Harvard Catalyst Safety‐net Infrastructure Initiative partnered with staff at a large academic public hospital system, including 15 primary care sites, to develop and administer an online survey. This survey was then adapted and administered at three other academically affiliated community health centers.

Results

Of the 260 providers surveyed, 136 (52%) responded. Nearly 80% reported interest in conducting either QI projects or clinical research and 95% of them believed it would enhance their career satisfaction. However, 63% did not report prior experience or training in research or QI and 93% reported at least one barrier to engagement.

Conclusion

While supporting safety‐net PCPs’ engagement in research and/or QI may improve career satisfaction there are numerous barriers that must be addressed to achieve this goal.     

Developing a Practice‐Based Research Network by Integrating Quality Improvement: Challenges and Ingredients for Success

Improving patient outcomes in community‐based settings is the goal of both the Clinical Translational Science Award program and practice‐based quality improvement (QI) programs. Given this common goal, integrating QI and outcomes research is a promising strategy for developing, implementing, and evaluating clinical interventions. This article describes the challenges and strengths illuminated by the conduct of a combined research/QI study in a nascent practice‐based research network. Challenges include research''s exclusion of clinic patients who might benefit from the intervention; QI programs’ less uniform approach to intervention implementation; and the need for both academic and clinically relevant products and publications. A major strength is the increased likelihood of both engaging clinical practices in research and developing successful clinical interventions. Required elements for success include identification of enthusiastic clinical research “champions,” involvement of researchers with clinical experience, and adequate funding to support both research and clinical resources and dissemination. Combined Ql/research projects in the practice‐based research environment have the potential to improve and shorten the cycle from good idea to improved clinical outcomes in real‐world settings. Clin Trans Sci 2012; Volume 5: 351–355     

Promoting Patient and Family Partnerships in Ambulatory Care Improvement: A Narrative Review and Focus Group Findings

Introduction

Ambulatory practices that actively partner with patients and families in quality improvement (QI) report benefits such as better patient/family interactions with physicians and staff, and patient empowerment. However, creating effective patient/family partnerships for ambulatory care improvement is not yet routine. The objective of this paper is to provide practices with concrete evidence about meaningfully involving patients and families in QI activities.

Methods

Review of literature published from 2000–2015 and a focus group conducted in 2014 with practice advisors.

Results

Thirty articles discussed 26 studies or examples of patient/family partnerships in ambulatory care QI. Patient and family partnership mechanisms included QI committees and advisory councils. Facilitators included process transparency, mechanisms for acting on patient/family input, and compensation. Challenges for practices included uncertainty about how best to involve patients and families in QI. Several studies found that patient/family partnership was a catalyst for improvement and reported that partnerships resulted in process improvements. Focus group results were concordant.

Conclusion

This paper describes emergent mechanisms and processes that ambulatory care practices use to partner with patients and families in QI including outcomes, facilitators, and challenges.

Funding

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

     

A quality improvement project: Defining and operationalizing a holistic admission selection policy

Nationwide, faculty in colleges of nursing are struggling to define practices surrounding holistic admission. Faculty may support the idea of holistic admissions however, little is known about how policies and procedures are developed, operationalized and applied across pools of applicants. The objective of this article is to describe the quality improvement (QI) process surrounding the development of a holistic admission selection policy by faculty in a college of nursing. The Experience-Attributes- Metrics Model was altered and adopted for use in our prelicensure programs. Selection criteria were defined and operationalized. Findings indicate that the QI process took approximately two years. The new policy and tiering are currently being applied to our pools of admission candidates.     

Sustainability in changing clinical practice promotes evidence-based nursing care

AIM: To examine the relationship between sustained work with quality improvement (QI) and factors related to research utilization in a group of nurses. DESIGN: The study was designed as a comparative survey that included 220 nurses from various health care organizations in Sweden. These nurses had participated in uniformly designed 4-day basic training courses to manage a method for QI. METHODS: A validated questionnaire covering different aspects of research utilization was employed. The response rate was 70% (154 of 220). Nurses in managerial positions at the departmental level were excluded. Therefore, the final sample consisted of 119 respondents. Four years after the training courses, 39% were still involved in audit-related activities, while 61% reported that they had discontinued the QI work (missing = 1). RESULTS: Most nurses (80-90%) had a positive attitude to research. Those who had continued the QI work over a 4-year period reported more activity in searching research literature compared with those who had discontinued the QI work (P = 0.005). The QI-sustainable nurses also reported more frequent participation in research-related activities, particularly in implementing specific research findings in practice (P = 0.001). Some contextual differences were reported: the QI-sustainable nurses were more likely to obtain support from their chief executive (P = 0.001), consultation from a skilled researcher (P = 0.005) and statistical support (P = 0.001). Within the broader health care organization, the existence of a research committee and a research and development strategy, as well as access to research assistant staff, had a tendency to be more common for nurses who had continued the QI work. CONCLUSION: Sustainability in QI work was significantly related to supportive leadership, facilitative human resources, increased activity in seeking new research and enhanced implementation of research findings in clinical practice. It appears that these factors constitute a necessary prerequisite for professional development and the establishment of evidence-based practice.     

Applying the Advancing Excellence in America's Nursing Homes Circle of Success to improving and sustaining quality

Looking forward to the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) program to be implemented and required in 2014, and as nursing home staff provide care for residents with increasingly complex health issues, knowledge of how to implement quality improvement (QI) is imperative. The nursing home administrator and director of nursing (DON) provide overall leadership, but it is the primary responsibility of the DON and other registered nurse staff to implement and manage the day to day QI process. This article describes potential roles of nursing leaders and key components of a QI project using a pressure ulcer case study exemplar to illustrate a quality improvement process. The authors suggest specific methods that RN leaders can employ using the Advancing Excellence Campaign Circle of Success as an organizing framework along with evidence-based resources. Nursing home leaders could use this article as a guideline for implementing any clinical quality improvement process.     

Development of outcome measurement tools for the integrated family delivered care project

The Integrated Family Delivered Care Project (IFDC) aims to empower parents to become experts in their baby's care, and create an ethos, which truly reflects and responds to the families' unique needs. This quality improvement project was developed based on emerging evidence from research studies, which has demonstrated the effectiveness of Family Integrated Care (FIC) model. Although this programme was designed as a quality improvement (QI) project using QI tools to avoid the inflexibility and certain barriers that academic research and randomised studies are associated with it is imperative that we collect reliable data on the effect of this new care model. As part of the IFDC project, a set of pre-defined outcome measures will be collected for infants enrolled in the IFDC project; these measures will be compared with retrospective matched controls cared in traditional neonatal care settings.     

Research and quality improvement: different processes, different evidence

Two sources commonly used for evidence-based practice include research findings and quality improvement (QI) reports. However, they often are implemented improperly. It is important for nurses to distinguish between research and QI. A tool for making such a distinction is presented.     

Maximizing benefits and minimizing risks in health services research near the end of life

This article explores the ethical issues specific to Health Services Research (HSR) in palliative care, with particular attention to similarities and differences between HSR and institutional quality improvement (QI) initiatives. We focus on the challenges of determining what level of protection is warranted by investigations of health services and programs of care, in contrast to the traditional randomized clinical trial design, and how best to assure subject protection. A decision algorithm regarding the requirements for full IRB review and informed consent is proposed as a mechanism to assure that the level of protection is commensurate with the level of risk.     

National Assessment of Quality Programs in Emergency Medical Services

Objective: This study aims to understand the adoption of clinical quality measurement throughout the United States on an EMS agency level, the features of agencies that do participate in quality measurement, and the level of physician involvement. It also aims to barriers to implementing quality improvement initiatives in EMS. Methods: A 46-question survey was developed to gather agency level data on current quality improvement practices and measurement. The survey was distributed nationally via State EMS Offices to EMS agencies nation-wide using Surveymonkey©. A convenience sample of respondents was enrolled between August and November, 2015. Univariate, bivariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted to describe demographics and relationships between outcomes of interest and their covariates using SAS 9.3©. Results: A total of 1,733 surveys were initiated and 1,060 surveys had complete or near-complete responses. This includes agencies from 45 states representing over 6.23 million 9-1-1 responses annually. Totals of 70.5% (747) agencies reported dedicated QI personnel, 62.5% (663) follow clinical metrics and 33.3% (353) participate in outside quality or research program. Medical director hours varied, notably, 61.5% (649) of EMS agencies had <5 hours of medical director time per month. Presence of medical director time was correlated with tracking of QI measures. Air medical [OR 9.64 (1.13, 82.16)] and hospital-based EMS agencies [OR 2.49 (1.36, 4.59)] were more likely to track quality measures compared to fire-based agencies. Agencies in rural only environments were less likely to follow clinical quality metrics. (OR 0.47 CI 0.31 ?0.72 p < 0.0004). For those that track QI measures, the most common are; Response Time (Emergency) (68.3%), On-Scene Time (66.4%), prehospital stroke screen (64.6%), aspirin administration (64.5%), and 12 lead ECG in chest pain patients (63.0%). Conclusions: EMS agencies in the United States have significant practice variability with regard to quality improvement resources, medical direction and specific clinical quality measures. More research is needed to understand the impact of this variation on patient care outcomes.     

Monitoring and improving pain management practices. A quality improvement approach

The development of a multidisciplinary pain management committee is a critical step in monitoring and improving pain management practices. The systematic evaluation of the quality of pain management using the principles of QI establishes a process that can lead to improvements in the care that patients receive. Clinicians need to develop a 1- to 2-year plan to improve the quality of pain management. Changes in clinicians' behaviors occur slowly; thus, members of pain management committees should not become discouraged but continue to move forward one step at a time.     

Monitoring transfusionist practices: a strategy for improving transfusion safety

BACKGROUND: Data from New York State indicate that about 1 of every 33,000 red cell units transfused is ABO-incompatible with the recipient. National application of these data suggests that as many as 360 ABO-incompatible whole blood and red cell transfusions might occur annually in the United States. Phlebotomy and blood bank laboratory errors cause some of these ABO-incompatible transfusions, but the greatest number result either partially or solely from the failure of transfusionists to identify properly either a patient or the blood component a patient receives. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A quality assessment/quality improvement (QA/QI), process is described that allowed for the direct oversight (monitoring) of transfusionists' practices and for the assessment of institutional policies for blood administration. RESULTS: At the beginning of the QA/QI process, monitoring of blood administration practices revealed that a variance from institutional blood administration policy occurred during 50 percent of blood and component transfusions. As a result of the QA/QI process, the percentage of transfusions with an associated variance from institutional policy dropped to nearly zero. CONCLUSION: The QA/QI process described in this report, or one similar to it, could improve transfusion safety and serve as a model for increased involvement by transfusion service medical directors in the oversight of transfusionists' practices.     

Inside the health disparities collaboratives: a detailed exploration of quality improvement at community health centers

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) based on the Chronic Care Model (CCM) are widely used models for improving medical care, but there has been little information to date about the specific projects undertaken by participants in these collaboratives and their outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To describe initiatives undertaken by community health centers (CHCs) participating in QICs (the Health Disparities Collaboratives) for asthma, cardiovascular disease, or diabetes, and to determine whether particular features of these initiatives were associated with improvement in health care processes or outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN: Observational cohort study. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Reports of quality improvement (QI) activities and clinical data from 40 CHCs participating in Health Disparities Collaboratives, 2000-2002. MEASURES: Clinical quality scores based on indicators of chronic disease care. RESULTS: Participating CHCs undertook an average of 44 QI activities per center (range, 8-84). These interventions were distributed broadly throughout the elements of the CCM, with particular emphasis on patient registry development and linkages to the surrounding community. Fifty-three percent of the interventions were fully institutionalized and 28% were evaluated by the centers. We found no relationships between improvement in quality and markers of QI activity quantity, intensity, or CCM category. CONCLUSIONS: Organizations participating in QICs fully integrate the CCM components into their QI activities. However, it remains unclear how specific activities pursued under the guidance of the CCM and QICs contribute to quality improvement.