Effects of a team Quality Improvement method in a national clinical audit programme of four clinical specialties in Ministry of Health hospitals in Saudi Arabia.

In 2018, the Ministry of Health (MoH) in Saudi Arabia developed a clinical excellence strategy. An objective was to reduce variation in clinical practices in MoH hospitals, particularly for conditions with high mortality in Saudi Arabia, by applying best practice clinical standards and using the clinical audit process to measure clinical practice. The strategy included working with multiprofessional teams in hospitals to implement improvements needed in clinical practice. To test the feasibility of carrying out national clinical audits in MoH hospitals, audits were carried out in 16 MoH hospitals on four clinical subjects-acute myocardial infarction, major trauma, sepsis, and stroke. Clinical expert groups, including Saudi clinicians and an international clinical expert, developed clinical care standards for the four conditions from analyses of international and Saudi clinical guidelines. The audits were designed with the expert groups. Multiprofessional teams were appointed to carry out the audits in designated MoH hospitals. Data collectors in each hospital were trained to collect data. Workshops were held with the teams on the clinical care standards and how data would be collected for the audits, and later, on the findings of data collection and how to use the improvement process to implement changes to improve compliance with the standards. After 4 months, data collection was repeated to determine if compliance with the clinical care standards had improved. Data collected from each hospital for both cycles of data collection were independently reliably tested. All designated hospitals participated in the audits, collecting and submitting data for two rounds of data collection and implementing improvement plans after the first round of data collection. All hospitals made substantial improvements in clinical practices. Of a total of 84 measures used to assess compliance with a total of 52 clinical care standards for the four clinical conditions, improvements were made by hospital teams in 58 (69.1%) measures. Improvements were statistically significant for 34 (40.5%) measures. The project demonstrated that well-designed and executed audits using evidence-based clinical care standards can result in substantial improvements in clinical practices in MoH hospitals in Saudi Arabia. Keys to success were the improvement methodology built into the audit process and the requirement for hospitals to appoint multiprofessional teams to carry out the audits. The approach adds to evidence on the effectiveness of clinical audits in achieving improvements in clinical quality and can be replicated in national audit programmes.

Effects of team-based quality improvement learning on two teams providing dementia care.

Objective: To determine the effects of a structured team-based learning approach to quality improvement (QI) on the performance 12 months later of two teams caring for patients with dementia. Design: Before and after prospective study. Setting: Staff working in two inpatient services in National Health Service Trusts in England, one providing orthopaedic surgery (Team A) and one caring for elderly people with mental health conditions, including dementia (Team B). Team A consisted of nurses; Team B included doctors, nurses, therapists, mental health support workers and administrators. Methods: QI training and support, assessment of the performance of teams and team coaching were provided to the two teams. QI training integrated tools for teamworking and a structured approach to QI. Team members completed the Aston Team Performance Inventory, a validated tool for assessing team performance, at the start of the QI work (time 1) and 1 year later (time 2). Results: A year after the QI training and team QI project, Team A members perceived themselves as a high-performing team, reflected in improvement in 24 of 52 components measured in the Inventory; Team B was initially a poorly performing team and had improvements in 42 of 52 components a year later. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that a structured team-based learning approach to QI has effects a year later on the performance of teams in clinical settings, as measured by a validated team performance tool.

Salzburg Global Seminar Session 565-'Better Health Care: how do we learn about improvement?'

A fundamental question for the field of healthcare improvement is the extent to which the results achieved can be attributed to the changes that were implemented and whether or not these changes are generalizable. Answering these questions is particularly challenging because the healthcare context is complex, and the interventions themselves tend to be complex and multi-dimensional. The Salzburg Global Seminar Session 565-'Better Health Care: How do we learn about improvement?' was convened to address questions of attribution, generalizability and rigor, and to think through how to approach these concerns in the field of quality improvement. The Salzburg Global Seminar Session 565 brought together 61 leaders in improvement from 22 countries, including researchers, evaluators and improvers. The primary conclusion that resulted from the session was the need for evaluation to be embedded as an integral part of the improvement. We have invited participants of the seminar to contribute to writing this supplement, which consists of eight articles reflecting insights and learning from the Salzburg Global Seminar. This editorial serves as an introduction to the supplement. The supplement explains results and insights from Salzburg Global Seminar Session 565.

Proposed standards for the design and conduct of a national clinical audit or quality improvement study.

PURPOSE: The purposes were to find and synthesize available literature on explicit or implicit standards for the design and conduct of a national activity that involves measuring and facilitating improvement of the quality of patient care, such as a national clinical audit or a quality improvement (QI) study, and to develop proposed standards for the design and conduct of the national activity. DATA SOURCES, SELECTION AND ANALYSIS: The literature was searched to identify key aspects of good practice in the conduct of national or international clinical audits, QI studies, performance or quality indicator measurements or equivalent national initiatives that have the purpose of driving improvement in the quality of care provided in a healthcare system. Key aspects of good practice in design or operation of these activities were abstracted from the literature, and organized logically into standard statements according to the stages in the design or conduct of such an activity. RESULTS: Thirty standards for the design and conduct of a national clinical audit or QI study were derived from the published literature. The standards are on structural, process and outcome aspects of any national activity that involves measuring and improving healthcare services. Most of the standards focus on measurement processes. CONCLUSION: It is hoped that these proposed standards for a national clinical audit or QI study will facilitate debate on how to assure the quality of these national activities. Activities that meet accepted standards may be more effective in influencing participating sites to achieve improvements in the quality of care.

Sensemaking of patient safety risks and hazards.

In order for organizations to become learning organizations, they must make sense of their environment and learn from safety events. Sensemaking, as described by Weick (1995), literally means making sense of events. The ultimate goal of sensemaking is to build the understanding that can inform and direct actions to eliminate risk and hazards that are a threat to patient safety. True sensemaking in patient safety must use both retrospective and prospective approach to learning. Sensemaking is as an essential part of the design process leading to risk informed design. Sensemaking serves as a conceptual framework to bring together well established approaches to assessment of risk and hazards: (1) at the single event level using root cause analysis (RCA), (2) at the processes level using failure modes effects analysis (FMEA) and (3) at the system level using probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). The results of these separate or combined approaches are most effective when end users in conversation-based meetings add their expertise and knowledge to the data produced by the RCA, FMEA, and/or PRA in order to make sense of the risks and hazards. Without ownership engendered by such conversations, the possibility of effective action to eliminate or minimize them is greatly reduced.

Struggling to invent high-reliability organizations in health care settings: Insights from the field.

The Mission of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has been to support and conduct health services research and to disseminate those research findings. Recently the Agency has changed its mission to: "Improving the quality, safety, efficiency and effectiveness of health care for all Americans." For agency personnel working with the topic of patient safety, that change has created a need to develop greater awareness of the current patient safety initiatives underway at leading health care systems in order to determine where AHRQ might best play a role in helping these systems more rapidly adopt new practices to improve patient safety. In order to make that determination, AHRQ conducted a customer needs assessment of leaders in selected health care systems, asking them questions about their current implementation initiatives and their perceived needs for continued implementation of patient safety initiatives. Although not designed or conducted as a research study, the hour-long interviews produced rich insights into the implementation efforts of patient safety initiatives. The senior leaders interviewed in each of the health care systems, described implementing patient safety initiatives on multiple fronts-in some systems as many as 15 initiatives were underway. As the number of initiatives attests, there was no lack of knowledge about what patient safety practices should be implemented (CPOE, rapid response teams, reduction in surgical site infections) rather the major struggle these health care systems faced was the "how to" of implementation. Most initiatives were only newly begun, so these leaders were not yet confident about what they had learned from these efforts or whether they could be sustained over time. These health care systems drew many of the ideas for initiatives from outside of health care, for example, the nuclear power industry or aviation. The executives expressed concern about a number of issues including: how patient safety initiatives should be sequenced, the lack of benchmarking data to measure their systems against and the pressing need for IT standardization. The insights from this customer needs assessment revealed a wealth of implementation knowledge in the field and has led AHRQ to create an opportunity for leading edge health care systems to learn from each other via learning networks.