Organizational learning in surgery in Tanzania's health system: a descriptive cross-sectional study.

Organizational learning is critical for delivering safe, high-quality surgical care, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where perioperative outcomes remain poor. While current investments in LMICs prioritize physical infrastructure, equipment, and staffing, investments in organizational learning are equally important to support innovation, creativity, and continuous improvement of surgical quality. This study aims to assess the extent to which health facilities in Tanzania's Lake Zone perform as learning organizations from the perspectives of surgical providers. The insights gained from this study can motivate future quality improvement initiatives and investments to improve surgical outcomes. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from an adapted survey to explore the key components of organizational learning, including a supportive learning environment, effective learning processes, and encouraging leadership. Our sample included surgical team members and leaders at 20 facilities (health centers, district hospitals, and regional hospitals). We calculated the average of the responses at individual facilities. Responses that were 5+ on a 7-point scale or 4+ on a 5-point scale were considered positive. We examined the variation in responses by facility characteristics using a one-way ANOVA or Student's t-test. We used univariate and multiple regression to assess relationships between facility characteristics and perceptions of organizational learning. Ninety-eight surgical providers and leaders participated in the survey. The mean facility positive response rate was 95.1% (SD 6.1%). Time for reflection was the least favorable domain with a score of 62.5% (SD 35.8%). There was variation by facility characteristics including differences in time for reflection when comparing by level of care (P = .02) and location (P = .01), and differences in trying new approaches (P = .008), capacity building (P = .008), and information transfer (P = .01) when comparing public versus faith-based facilities. In multivariable analysis, suburban centers had less time for reflection than urban facilities (adjusted difference = -0.48; 95% CI: -0.95, -0.01; P = .046). Surgical team members reported more positive responses compared to surgical team leaders. We found a high overall positive response rate in characterizing organizational learning in surgery in 20 health facilities in Tanzania's Lake Zone. Our findings identify areas for improvement and provide a baseline for assessing the effectiveness of change initiatives. Future research should focus on validating the adapted survey and exploring the impact of strong learning environments on surgical outcomes in LMICs. Organizational learning is crucial in surgery and further research, funding, and policy work should be dedicated to improving learning cultures in health facilities.

A practical tool for managing change: cross-sectional psychometric assessment of the safe surgery organizational readiness tool.

BACKGROUND: Strengthening health systems through planned safety and quality improvement initiatives is an imperative to achieve more equitable, resilient, and effective care. And yet, years of organizational behavior research demonstrate that change initiatives often fall short because managers fail to account for organizational readiness for change. This finding remains true especially among surgical safety and quality improvement initiatives in low-income countries and middle-income countries. In this study, our aim was to psychometrically assess the construct validity and internal consistency of the Safe Surgery Organizational Readiness Tool (SSORT), a short survey tool designed to provide change leaders with insight into facility infrastructure that supports learning and readiness to undertake change. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To demonstrate generalizability and achieve a large sample size ( n =1706) to conduct exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), a collaboration between seven surgical and anesthesia safety and quality improvement initiatives was formed. Collected survey data from health care workers were divided into pilot, exploration, and confirmation samples. The pilot sample was used to assess feasibility. The exploration sample was used to conduct EFA, while the confirmation sample was used to conduct CFA. Factor internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. RESULTS: Results of the EFA retained 9 of the 16 proposed factors associated with readiness to change. CFA results of the identified 9 factor model, measured by 28 survey items, demonstrated excellent fit to data. These factors (appropriateness, resistance to change, team efficacy, team learning orientation, team valence, communication about change, learning environment, vision for sustainability, and facility capacity) were also found to be internally consistent. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that communication, team learning, and supportive environment are components of change readiness that can be reliably measured prior to implementation of projects that promote surgical safety and quality improvement in low-income countries and middle-income countries. Future research can link performance on identified factors to outcomes that matter most to patients.

A multimodal mentorship intervention to improve surgical quality in Tanzania's Lake Zone: a convergent, mixed methods assessment.

BACKGROUND: Safe, high-quality surgical care in many African countries is a critical need. Challenges include availability of surgical providers, improving quality of care, and building workforce capacity. Despite growing evidence that mentoring is effective in African healthcare settings, less is known about its role in surgery. We examined a multimodal approach to mentorship as part of a safe surgery intervention (Safe Surgery 2020) to improve surgical quality. Our goal was to distill lessons for policy makers, intervention designers, and practitioners on key elements of a successful surgical mentorship program. METHODS: We used a convergent, mixed-methods design to examine the experiences of mentees, mentors, and facility leaders with mentorship at 10 health facilities in Tanzania's Lake Zone. A multidisciplinary team of mentors worked with surgical providers over 17 months using in-person mentorship, telementoring, and WhatsApp. We conducted surveys, in-depth interviews, and focus groups to capture data in four categories: (1) satisfaction with mentorship; (2) perceived impact; (3) elements of a successful mentoring program; and (4) challenges to implementing mentorship. We analyzed quantitative data using frequency analysis and qualitative data using the constant comparison method. Recurrent and unifying concepts were identified through merging the qualitative and quantitative data. RESULTS: Overall, 96% of mentees experienced the intervention as positive, 88% were satisfied, and 100% supported continuing the intervention in the future. Mentees, mentors, and facility leaders perceived improvements in surgical practice, the surgical ecosystem, and in reducing postsurgical infections. Several themes related to the intervention's success emerged: (1) the intervention's design, including its multimodality, side-by-side mentorship, and standardization of practices; (2) the mentee-mentor relationship, including a friendly, safe, non-hierarchical, team relationship, as well as mentors' understanding of the local context; and (3) mentorship characteristics, including non-judgmental feedback, experience, and accessibility. Challenges included resistance to change, shortage of providers, mentorship dose, and logistics. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests a multimodal mentorship approach is promising in building the capacity of surgical providers. By distilling the experiences of the mentees, mentors, and facility leaders, our lessons provide a foundation for future efforts to establish effective surgical mentorship programs that build provider capacity and ultimately improve surgical quality.

Development and content validation of the Safe Surgery Organizational Readiness Tool: A quality improvement study.

BACKGROUND: Recent efforts to increase access to safe and high-quality surgical care in low- and middle-income countries have proven successful. However, multiple facilities implementing the same safety and quality improvement interventions may not all achieve successful outcomes. This heterogeneity could be explained, in part, by pre-intervention organizational characteristics and lack of readiness of surgical facilities. In this study, we describe the process of developing and content validating the Safe Surgery Organizational Readiness Tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The new tool was developed in two stages. First, qualitative results from a Safe Surgery 2020 intervention were combined with findings from a literature review of organizational readiness and change. Second, through iterative discussions and expert review, the Safe Surgery Organizational Readiness Tool was content validated. RESULTS: The Safe Surgery Organizational Readiness Tool includes 14 domains and 56 items measuring the readiness of surgical facilities in low- and middle-income countries to implement surgical safety and quality improvement interventions. This multi-dimensional and multi-level tool offers insights into facility members' beliefs and attitudes at the individual, team, and facility levels. A panel review affirmed the content validity of the Safe Surgery Organizational Readiness Tool. CONCLUSION: The Safe Surgery Organizational Readiness Tool is a theory- and evidence-based tool that can be used by change agents and facility leaders in low- and middle-income countries to assess the baseline readiness of surgical facilities to implement surgical safety and quality improvement interventions. Next steps include assessing the reliability and validity of the Safe Surgery Organizational Readiness Tool, likely resulting in refinements.