Exploration of contextual factors in a successful quality improvement collaborative in English ambulance services: cross-sectional survey.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical leadership and organizational culture are important contextual factors for quality improvement (QI) but the relationship between these and with organizational change is complex and poorly understood. We aimed to explore the relationship between clinical leadership, culture of innovation and clinical engagement in QI within a national ambulance QI Collaborative (QIC). METHODS: We used a self-administered online questionnaire survey sent to front-line clinicians in all 12 English ambulance services. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of quantitative data and qualitative analysis of free-text responses. RESULTS: There were 2743 (12% of 22 117) responses from 11 of the 12 participating ambulance services. In the 3% of responders that were directly involved with the QIC, leadership behaviour was significantly higher than for those not directly involved. QIC involvement made no significant difference to responders' perceptions of the culture of innovation in their organization, which was generally considered poor. Although uptake of QI methods was low overall, QIC members were significantly more likely to use QI methods, which were also significantly associated with leadership behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a limited organizational culture of innovation, clinical leadership and use of QI methods in ambulance services generally, the QIC achieved its aims to significantly improve pre-hospital care for acute myocardial infarction and stroke. We postulate that this was mediated through an improvement subculture, linked to the QIC, which facilitated large-scale improvement by stimulating leadership and QI methods. Further research is needed to understand success factors for QI in complex health care environments.

The effect of a national quality improvement collaborative on prehospital care for acute myocardial infarction and stroke in England.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown wide variations in prehospital ambulance care for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing a Quality Improvement Collaborative (QIC) for improving ambulance care for AMI and stroke. METHODS: We used an interrupted time series design to investigate the effect of a national QIC on change in delivery of care bundles for AMI (aspirin, glyceryl trinitrate [GTN], pain assessment and analgesia) and stroke (face-arm-speech test, blood pressure and blood glucose recording) in all English ambulance services between January 2010 and February 2012. Key strategies for change included local quality improvement (QI) teams in each ambulance service supported by a national coordinating expert group that conducted workshops educating staff in QI methods to improve AMI and stroke care. Expertise and ideas were shared between QI teams who met together at three national workshops, between QI leads through monthly teleconferences, and between the expert group and participants. Feedback was provided to services using annotated control charts. RESULTS: We analyzed change over time using logistic regression with three predictor variables: time, gender, and age. There were statistically significant improvements in care bundles in nine (of 12) participating trusts for AMI (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.04, 1.04), nine for stroke (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.05, 1.07), 11 for either AMI or stroke, and seven for both conditions. Overall care bundle performance for AMI increased in England from 43 to 79% and for stroke from 83 to 96%. Successful services all introduced provider prompts and individualized or team feedback. Other determinants of success included engagement with front-line clinicians, feedback using annotated control charts, expert support, and shared learning between participants and organizations. CONCLUSIONS: This first national prehospital QIC led to significant improvements in ambulance care for AMI and stroke in England. The use of care bundles as measures, clinical engagement, application of quality improvement methods, provider prompts, individualized feedback and opportunities for learning and interaction within and across organizations helped the collaborative to achieve its aims.