How to sustainably build capacity in quality improvement within a healthcare organisation: a deep-dive, focused qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: A key characteristic of healthcare systems that deliver high quality and cost performance in a sustainable way is a systematic approach to capacity and capability building for quality improvement. The aim of this research was to explore the factors that lead to successful implementation of a program of quality improvement projects and a capacity and capability building program that facilitates or support these. METHODS: Between July 2018 and February 2020, the Southern Adelaide Local Health Network (SALHN), a network of health services in Adelaide, South Australia, conducted three capability-oriented capacity building programs that incorporated 82 longstanding individual quality improvement projects. Qualitative analysis of data collected from interviews of 19 project participants and four SALHN Improvement Faculty members and ethnographic observations of seven project team meetings were conducted. RESULTS: We found four interacting components that lead to successful implementation of quality improvement projects and the overall program that facilitates or support these: an agreed and robust quality improvement methodology, a skilled faculty to assist improvement teams, active involvement of leadership and management, and a deep understanding that teams matter. A strong safety culture is not necessarily a pre-requisite for quality improvement gains to be made; indeed, undertaking quality improvement activities can contribute to an improved safety culture. For most project participants in the program, the time commitment for projects was significant and, at times, maintaining momentum was a challenge. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare systems that wish to deliver high quality and cost performance in a sustainable way should consider embedding the four identified components into their quality improvement capacity and capability building strategy.

Australians with osteoarthritis: satisfaction with health care providers and the perceived helpfulness of treatments and information sources.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the satisfaction of Australian patients who suffer from osteoarthritis (OA) with their health care providers and the perceived helpfulness of treatments and information sources. METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire was conducted with a sample of 560 Australian patients who suffer from OA with questions about satisfaction with health care providers and the helpfulness of different treatment options and information sources. Logistic regression models were used to assess potential predictors of satisfaction. Thematic analysis was undertaken for attitudinal factors associated with satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 435 participants returned questionnaires (response rate 78%). Most respondents were highly satisfied with the care provided by their general practitioner (GP) (84%), communication with their GP (88%), time spent with their GP (84%), and their ability to talk freely with their GP about their medical problem (93%), but less satisfied with their ability to talk freely about associated emotional problems (77%). Satisfaction with pharmacists (80%), rheumatologists (76%), and orthopedic surgeons (72%) was high. Joint replacement surgery (91%), prescription anti-inflammatory medications (66%), aids and assistive devices (65%), intra-articular injections (63%), and prescription painkiller medications (62%) were perceived as effective treatments. Less highly rated treatments were exercise (48%), physiotherapy (43%), and complementary medicines (29%). A majority of patients were satisfied with the information to manage their OA (65%). From the multivariable logistic regression analysis, four GP satisfaction factors were found to be predictors of overall satisfaction with GP care: the amount of time that the GP spends with the patient (P=0.005), the information the GP provides about what to expect (P<0.001), the communication between patient and GP (P=0.001), and the information that the GP provides about medications (P=0.042). CONCLUSION: The study showed that although patients with OA were generally satisfied with their health care providers, there was notable variation in the perceived helpfulness of therapeutic options. The importance to patients of having access to good quality information about their condition was emphasized.

Australian general practitioner attitudes to clinical practice guidelines and some implications for translating osteoarthritis care into practice.

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been shown to improve processes of care and health outcomes, but there is often a discrepancy between recommendations for care and clinical practice. This study sought to explore general practitioner (GP) attitudes towards CPGs, in general and specifically for osteoarthritis (OA), with the implications for translating OA care into practice. A self-administered questionnaire was conducted in January 2013 with a sample of 228 GPs in New South Wales and South Australia. Seventy-nine GPs returned questionnaires (response rate 35%). Nearly all GPs considered that CPGs support decision-making in practice (94%) and medical education (92%). Very few respondents regarded CPGs as a threat to clinical autonomy, and most recognised that individual patient circumstances must be taken into account. Shorter CPG formats were preferred over longer and more comprehensive formats, with preferences being evenly divided among respondents for short, 2-3-page summaries, flowcharts or algorithms and single page checklists. GPs considered accessibility to CPGs to be important, and electronic formats were popular. Familiarity and use of The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners OA Guideline was poor, with most respondents either not aware of it (30%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 27 - 41%), had never used it (19%; 95% CI 12 - 29%) or rarely used it (34%; 95% CI 25-45%). If CPGs are to assist with the translation of evidence into practice, they must be easily accessible and in a format that encourages use.

Australian GP management of osteoarthritis following the release of the RACGP guideline for the non-surgical management of hip and knee osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly disabling and costly condition with an escalating prevalence in Australia due to the ageing and increasing obesity of the population. The general practitioner (GP) plays a central role in the management of this condition. The aim of this study was to examine opinions about the management of OA by Australian GPs following the release of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Guideline for the non-surgical management of hip and knee OA (RACGP OA CPG), and to compare the results with an earlier survey administered by the National Prescribing Service. METHODS: In January 2013, a self-administered questionnaire was sent to 228 GPs to determine their treatment approaches to OA management using a clinical vignette of a patient with OA. This was compared with results from a similar survey undertaken in 2006. RESULTS: Seventy-nine GPs returned questionnaires (response rate 35%). GP recommendations for paracetamol, a paracetamol/codeine compound, and oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were consistent with recommendations in the RACGP OA CPG, and varied little from the previous survey. Notably, there was a marked increase between surveys in GP recommendations for tramadol (p = 0.004) and more potent opioids (p < 0.001). Advice about the adverse effects of NSAIDs and codeine and how to manage them increased between surveys (p = 0.038 and 0.005, respectively). For all non-pharmacological treatments, there were only minor changes in the percentage of GP recommendations when compared with the previous survey, however they remain underutilised. CONCLUSIONS: GPs generally demonstrated a conservative approach to the treatment of OA, however, the increased recommendations for more potent opioids warrants further investigation. Patients should be made aware of the risks of medications through the use of decision aids, which can provide structured guidance to treatment. Non-pharmacological interventions were not given the importance that is suggested by clinical practice guidelines.

Assessing appropriateness of osteoarthritis care using quality indicators: a systematic review.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Quality indicators (QIs) derived from the review of medical records, administrative databases, and patient questionnaires and interviews have been frequently used to assess the quality of osteoarthritis (OA) care. The purpose of this review is to summarize studies that have assessed the quality of OA care using QIs. METHOD: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO for English-language studies indexed by October 2014. Articles were included if they used any QIs for assessing the quality of OA care. We summarized the results of these studies, and with meta-analysis, generated an overall conclusion about the quality of care as measured by QIs for each treatment domain for OA care. RESULTS: Fourteen studies assessed as being of high-quality were included in the review, with the number of QIs ranging from 1 to 21. Four of the 14 studies solely assessed the quality of OA care, while the other studies assessed health care quality for a range of conditions that included OA. The quality of OA care as assessed by a meta-analysis of QI pass rates across studies was suboptimal for all treatment domains (pass rates: pain and functional status assessment ­ 48.5%, 95% CI 32.6-64.6%; non-drug treatment ­ 36.1%, 95% CI 27.8-44.7%; drug treatment ­ 37.5%, 95% CI 30.8-44.5%; surgical referral ­ 78.9%, 95% CI 57.4-94.2%). CONCLUSION: Despite efforts made at improving care for patients with OA, the wide divergence between evidence and consensus-based recommended care and practice has been reaffirmed.

Australians with osteoarthritis; the use of and beliefs about complementary and alternative medicines.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use amongst a cohort of osteoarthritis (OA) sufferers and to explore reasons for use. METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire was used to assess CAM use and its relationship with self-rated health status, patient knowledge of OA and attitudes towards OA management. RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent of respondents (95% CI, 64%-73%) reported that they had tried CAM, with little difference between age groups and genders. Patients who had a better knowledge of their condition and excellent self-rated health were more likely to use CAM. An aversion to the side effects of conventional medicine, failure to engage in exercise, and a belief in the efficacy of CAM were the principal factors underlying use. CONCLUSION: As CAM use is a key component of the self-management strategies for a substantial proportion of Australians with OA, users need to be more fully informed about evidence of efficacy.