"Nothing Is More Powerful than Words:" How Patient Experience Narratives Enable Improvement.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patient experience narratives (narratives) are an increasingly important element of both measurement approaches and improvement efforts in healthcare. Prior studies show that narratives are considered by both clinicians and staff to be an appealing, meaningful, and credible form of evidence on performance. They also suggest that making concrete use of narratives within organizational settings to improve care can be complex and challenging. Our qualitative study was designed to explore how middle managers working in a health system's outpatient clinics value and use written narratives in their day-to-day work. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with 20 middle managers working in 8 outpatient clinics. Interviews were fully transcribed, loaded into MAX-QDA software, and coded using thematic analysis techniques. Code reports were extracted and reanalyzed for subthemes related to the objectives of this paper. RESULTS: Middle managers across sites described valuing narratives as a tool to: enable better patient experience assessment by augmenting data from patient experience scores; deepen understanding of and relationships with patients; provide insight about operational issues; identify areas for needed improvement and potential solutions; and facilitate strategic work. They reported using narratives for a range of activities related to their roles as supervisors, such as focusing attention on positive practices and needed improvements, promoting deeper group learning, motivating change, reinforcing sense of purpose for staff, recognizing staff strengths and training needs, and inspiring transformational thinking. Finally, interviewees reported numerous specific quality improvement projects (both short- and longer-term) that were informed by narratives-for example, by identifying an issue to be addressed or by suggesting a workable solution. Together, these interviews suggest a collective "narrative about narratives" woven by these organizational actors-a story which illustrates how narratives are highly relevant for how middle managers derive meaning from their work, put organizational values such as responsive service provision into practice, and enact their roles as supervisors. CONCLUSIONS: Our results add to the nascent literature a detailed description of how narratives can be used both as a tool for middle managers in their leadership and supervisory roles, and as a blueprint for improvement work within outpatient settings. They also illuminate why patient experience scores may improve when narrative data are collected and used. Finally, our results suggest that for middle managers, perhaps "nothing is more powerful than words" because narratives function as both an insight provider and a compelling tool that adds direction and meaning to workplace endeavors.

Learning from patients: The impact of using patients' narratives on patient experience scores.

BACKGROUND: Enthusiasm has grown about using patients' narratives-stories about care experiences in patients' own words-to advance organizations' learning about the care that they deliver and how to improve it, but studies confirming association have not been published. PURPOSE: We assessed whether primary care clinics that frequently share patients' narratives with their staff have higher patient experience survey scores. APPROACH: We conducted a 1-year study of 5,545 adult patients and 276 staff affiliated with nine clinics in one health system. We used multilevel models to analyze survey data from patients about their experiences and from staff about exposure to useful narratives. We examined staff confidence in own knowledge as a moderator because confidence can influence use of new information sources. RESULTS: Frequency of sharing useful narratives with staff was associated with patient experience scores for all measures, conditional on staff confidence in own knowledge ( p < .01). For operational measures (e.g., care coordination), increased sharing correlated with subsequently higher performance for more confident staff and lower performance or no difference for less confident staff, depending on measure. For relational measures (e.g., patient-provider communication), increased sharing correlated with higher scores for less confident staff and lower scores for more confident staff. CONCLUSION: Sharing narratives with staff frequently is associated with better patient experience survey scores, conditional on confidence in knowledge. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Frequently sharing useful patient narratives should be encouraged as an organizational improvement strategy. However, organizations need to address how narrative feedback interacts with their staff's confidence to realize higher experience scores across domains.

Pursuing innovation in academic medical centers: Models, activities, and influential factors.

BACKGROUND: Academic medical centers (AMCs) are well recognized for their innovations that enhance frontline care, but there is little study of their innovation management processes, which is key for advancing theory regarding the effectiveness of innovation efforts to improve care. PURPOSE: We aimed to identify organizational models used for frontline innovation by AMCs in the United States, core activities within models, and factors that influence innovation success. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study of 12 AMCs using data from semistructured interviews with centers' innovation leaders. Inclusion required satisfying two of three criteria in 2021 (only met by 35 AMCs nationally): listed in the professional association of innovation leaders (Council of 33), Becker's review of most innovative hospitals, and/or top 20 U.S. News and World Report best hospitals honor roll. We analyzed the interview data using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Innovative AMCs pursue innovation through innovation centers (using a centralized or multicenter model) or within clinical departments (department-level model). All three models emphasize seven activities, although performed differently: sourcing ideas, developing ideas, implementing innovations, fundraising, managing partnerships, measuring success, and managing mindset. Several factors influenced success: role performance, operational challenges, technology, public policy, customer clarity, stakeholder buy-in, diversity of input, and focus. The centralized model struggled less with standardization and coordination issues. CONCLUSION: AMCs have options for structuring their innovation efforts. However, there are consistent activities for successful innovation management and factors that they must manage. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: AMCs can select among innovation models to fit their circumstances but likely need to perform seven activities well for success.

A systematic review of research on empathy in health care.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the predictors and outcomes of empathy by health care personnel, methods used to study their empathy, and the effectiveness of interventions targeting their empathy, in order to advance understanding of the role of empathy in health care and facilitate additional research aimed at increasing positive patient care experiences and outcomes. DATA SOURCE: We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, PsycInfo, and Business Source Complete to identify empirical studies of empathy involving health care personnel in English-language publications up until April 20, 2021, covering the first five decades of research on empathy in health care (1971-2021). STUDY DESIGN: We performed a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Title and abstract screening for study eligibility was followed by full-text screening of relevant citations to extract study information (e.g., study design, sample size, empathy measure used, empathy assessor, intervention type if applicable, other variables evaluated, results, and significance). We classified study predictors and outcomes into categories, calculated descriptive statistics, and produced tables to summarize findings. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of the 2270 articles screened, 455 reporting on 470 analyses satisfied the inclusion criteria. We found that most studies have been survey-based, cross-sectional examinations; greater empathy is associated with better clinical outcomes and patient care experiences; and empathy predictors are many and fall into five categories (provider demographics, provider characteristics, provider behavior during interactions, target characteristics, and organizational context). Of the 128 intervention studies, 103 (80%) found a positive and significant effect. With four exceptions, interventions were educational programs focused on individual clinicians or trainees. No organizational-level interventions (e.g., empathy-specific processes or roles) were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Empirical research provides evidence of the importance of empathy to health care outcomes and identifies multiple changeable predictors of empathy. Training can improve individuals' empathy; organizational-level interventions for systematic improvement are lacking.

Integrating network theory into the study of integrated healthcare.

Healthcare policy in the United States (U.S.) has focused on promoting integrated healthcare to combat fragmentation (e.g., 1993 Health Security Act, 2010 Affordable Care Act). Researchers have responded by studying coordination and developing typologies of integration. Yet, after three decades, research evidence for the benefits of coordination and integration are lacking. We argue that research efforts need to refocus in three ways: (1) use social networks to study relational coordination and integrated healthcare, (2) analyze integrated healthcare at three levels of analysis (micro, meso, macro), and (3) focus on clinical integration as the most proximate impact on patient outcomes. We use examples to illustrate the utility of such refocusing and present avenues for future research.

Development and testing of a survey measure of organizational perinatal patient-centered care culture.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and test a measure of patient-centered care (PCC) culture in hospital-based perinatal care. DATA SOURCES: Data were obtained from US perinatal hospitals: one provided survey development data and 14 contributed data for survey testing. STUDY DESIGN: We used qualitative and quantitative methods to develop the mother-infant centered care (MICC) culture survey. Qualitative methods included observation, focus group, interviews, and expert consultations to adapt items from other settings and create new items capturing dimensions of PCC articulated by The Commonwealth Fund. We quantitatively assessed survey psychometric properties using reliability (Cronbach's α and Pearson correlation coefficients) and validity (exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis [CFA]) statistics, and refined the survey. After confirming aggregation suitability (ICCs), we calculated "MICC culture scores" at the individual, unit, and hospital level and assessed associations between scores and survey-collected, staff-reported outcomes to evaluate concurrent validity. DATA COLLECTION: Survey development included 12 site-visit observations, one semi-structured focus group (five participants), two semi-structured interviews, five cognitive interviews, and three expert consultations. Survey testing used online surveys administered to obstetric and neonatal unit staff (N = 316). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Using responses from 10 hospitals with ≥4 responses from both units (n = 240), the 20-item MICC culture survey demonstrated reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.95) while capturing all PCC dimensions (subscale Cronbach's α = 0.72-0.87). CFA showed validity through goodness-of-fit (overall chi-square = 214 [p-value = 0.012], SRMR = 0.056, RMSEA = 0.041, CFI = 0.97, and TLI = 0.96). Aggregation statistics (ICCs < 0.05) justify unit- and hospital-level aggregation. Demonstrating preliminary validity, individual-, unit-, and hospital-level MICC culture scores were associated with all outcomes (satisfaction with care provided, within-unit team effectiveness, and relational coordination [RC] between units) (p-values < 0.05), except for neonatal unit scores and RC (p-value = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: The MICC culture survey is a psychometrically sound measure of PCC culture for hospital-based perinatal care. Survey scores are associated with staff-reported outcomes. Future studies with patient outcomes will aid identification of improvement opportunities in perinatal care.

Effects of affiliation network membership on hospital quality and financial performance.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of hospital membership in affiliation networks-franchise-like networks sponsored by high-quality health systems in which affiliate hospitals pay an annual fee for access to sponsor's operational and clinical resources-on clinical quality, patient experience ratings, and financial performance of affiliates and their competitors. DATA SOURCES: Network membership data from press releases and websites of four sponsors (Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, MD Anderson, Memorial Sloan Kettering), American Hospital Association's Annual Survey, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Hospital Compare, and Healthcare Cost Report Information System, all for 2005-2016. STUDY DESIGN: We used a quasi-experimental design and estimated hospital-level regressions with hospital-fixed effects. Dependent variables were measures of clinical quality, patient experience, and financial performance. Independent variables included an indicator for affiliate versus nonaffiliate and fixed effects for hospital characteristics and year. To analyze effects on competitors, we repeated analyses by comparing hospitals in the same county as an affiliate to nonaffiliated, noncompetitor hospitals. DATA COLLECTION: Membership was obtained through press releases and network websites then linked across datasets by name and Medicare's identification number. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Across networks, affiliates (N = 199) experienced insignificant clinical quality changes but increased net income by $38,500 and operating margin by 6.6% (p values = 0.01-0.08) compared to nonaffiliates. Multispecialty affiliates improved on no measures. Cancer-specific affiliates improved their net income ($96,900) and operating margin (3.6%; p-values < 0.05). Affiliates' competitors experienced mixed changes in clinical measures relative to hospitals without affiliates in market (p-value < 0.05) but no financial effects. Affiliation was not associated with patient experience ratings for affiliates nor competitors. CONCLUSIONS: Despite quality-focused missions, affiliation networks are not guaranteed to improve public measures of quality in affiliated hospitals, although hospitals in these communities improve financially. Future research should assess the conditions and mechanisms by which affiliation improves quality consistently and which forms of quality.

Association of women leaders in the C-suite with hospital performance.

BACKGROUND: Women comprise 50% of the healthcare workforce, but only about 25% of senior leadership positions in the USA. No studies to our knowledge have investigated the performance of hospitals led by women versus those led by men to evaluate the potential explanation that the inequity reflects appropriate selection due to skill or performance differences. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive analysis of the gender composition of hospital senior leadership (C-suite) teams and cross-sectional, regression-based analyses of the relationship between gender composition, hospital characteristics (eg, location, size, ownership), and financial, clinical, safety, patient experience and innovation performance metrics using 2018 data for US adult medical/surgical hospitals with >200 beds. C-suite positions examined included chief executive officer (CEO), chief financial officer (CFO) and chief operating officer (COO). Gender was obtained from hospital web pages and LinkedIn. Hospital characteristics and performance were obtained from American Hospital Directory, American Hospital Association Annual Hospital Survey, Healthcare Cost Report Information System and Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys. RESULTS: Of the 526 hospitals studied, 22% had a woman CEO, 26% a woman CFO and 36% a woman COO. While 55% had at least one woman in the C-suite, only 15.6% had more than one. Of the 1362 individuals who held one of the three C-suite positions, 378 were women (27%). Hospital performance on 27 of 28 measures (p>0.05) was similar between women and men-led hospitals. Hospitals with a woman CEO performed significantly better than men-led hospitals on one financial metric, days in accounts receivable (p=0.04). CONCLUSION: Hospitals with women in the C-suite have comparable performance to those without, yet inequity in the gender distribution of leaders remains. Barriers to women's advancement should be recognised and efforts made to rectify this inequity, rather than underusing an equally skilled pool of potential women leaders.

Effects of Leader Tactics on the Creativity, Implementation, and Evolution of Ideas to Improve Healthcare Delivery.

BACKGROUND: Slow progress in quality improvement (QI) has prompted calls to identify new QI ideas. Leaders guiding these efforts are advised to use evidence-based tactics, or specific approaches to address a goal, to promote clinician and staff engagement in the generation and implementation of QI ideas, but little evidence about effective tactics exists. OBJECTIVE: Examine the association between leader tactics and the creativity, implementation outcome, and evolution of QI ideas from clinicians and staff. DESIGN: Prospective panel analysis of 220 ideas generated by 12 leaders and teams (N = 72 members) from federally qualified community health practices in one center over 18 months. Measures were extracted from meeting minutes (note-taking by a member during meetings) and expert panel review. Multi-level models were used. MEASURES: Leader tactics, idea creativity, implementation outcome, evolution pathways, center, and idea-submitter characteristics. RESULTS: Leaders used one of four approaches: no tactic, meeting ground rules, team brainstorming, or reflection on team process. Implemented ideas evolved in three pathways: Plug and Play, Slow Burn, and Iterate and Generate. Compared with no leader tactic, meeting ground rules resulted in ideas not significantly different in creativity, implementation outcome, or evolution pathway. Brainstorming was associated with greater idea creativity, idea implementation, and ideas following a Plug and Play path (low member engagement and implementation over 2 months or less). Reflection on team process was associated with idea implementation (versus not), and ideas following an Iterate and Generate path (high member engagement and implementation over 3 months or more). CONCLUSIONS: Two tactics, brainstorming and reflection, are helpful depending on goals. Brainstorming may aide leaders seeking disruptive change via more creative, rapidly implemented ideas. Reflection on team process may aide leaders seeking high-engagement ideas that may be implemented slowly. Both tactics may help leaders cultivate dynamics that increase implementation of ideas that improve healthcare.

A Systematic Review of Surveys for Measuring Patient-centered Care in the Hospital Setting.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered care (PCC) is a core component of quality care and its measurement is fundamental for research and improvement efforts. However, an inventory of surveys for measuring PCC in hospitals, a core care setting, is not available. OBJECTIVE: To identify surveys for assessing PCC in hospitals, assess PCC dimensions that they capture, report their psychometric properties, and evaluate applicability to individual and/or dyadic (eg, mother-infant pairs in pregnancy) patients. RESEARCH DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of articles published before January 2019 available on PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCO Host and references of extracted papers to identify surveys used to measure "patient-centered care" or "family-centered care." Surveys used in hospitals and capturing at least 3 dimensions of PCC, as articulated by the Picker Institute, were included and reviewed in full. Surveys' descriptions, subscales, PCC dimensions, psychometric properties, and applicability to individual and dyadic patients were assessed. RESULTS: Thirteen of 614 articles met inclusion criteria. Nine surveys were identified, which were designed to obtain assessments from patients/families (n=5), hospital staff (n=2), and both patients/families and hospital staff (n=2). No survey captured all 8 Picker dimensions of PCC [median=6 (range, 5-7)]. Psychometric properties were reported infrequently. All surveys applied to individual patients, none to dyadic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple surveys for measuring PCC in hospitals are available. Opportunities exist to improve survey comprehensiveness regarding dimensions of PCC, reporting of psychometric properties, and development of measures to capture PCC for dyadic patients.

Who Joins the Franchise, Affiliation Model of Hospital Networks? An Analysis of Hospital and Market Characteristics of Members.

Joining nonownership based, organization-driven networks and alliances is a common strategy for hospitals to pursue yet little is known about what types of hospitals join these collaborations, due in part to challenges in identifying members. One novel network form that has recently emerged, and made identification feasible, is franchise-like "affiliation networks" in which affiliate hospitals pay an annual membership fee that allows access to the clinical expertise and resources of high-status, nationally ranked sponsor hospitals. Affiliation networks and their members publicize affiliation. Using 2006-2015 data on United States' hospitals, we find hospitals with higher patient acuity, teaching hospitals, and hospitals located in areas of higher utilization intensity were more likely to join an affiliation network. Joining affiliation networks does not appear to be in response to highly competitive markets because hospitals in less competitive environments are more likely to join and hospitals with higher net incomes are more likely to join.

The How Matters: How Primary Care Provider Communication With Team Relates to Patients' Disease Management.

BACKGROUND: Investigating primary care provider (PCP)-team communication can provide insight into how colleagues work together to become high-functioning teams more able to address an increasingly complex set of tasks associated with chronic disease management. OBJECTIVE: To assess how PCP communication with their care team relates to patients' health. RESEARCH DESIGN: Longitudinal study of how 3 aspects of PCP-care team communication-participation, time spent listening, and uninterrupted speaking length-relate to disease management of patients with hypertension or diabetes, and the effect of these team communication behaviors on PCP-patient communication as a pathway by which this relationship might exist. We used multilevel regression models. SUBJECTS: Twenty-seven PCPs and 98 team members, and 18,067 patients with hypertension and 8354 patients with diabetes affiliated with a federally qualified health center with 12 practice sites. MEASURES: Primary data on communication collected using sociometric sensors worn by PCPs and team members, patient-PCP communication data collected with surveys, and patient health, PCP and patient characteristics extracted from electronic records. RESULTS: PCPs participated in 75% of care team conversations, spent 56% of conversation time listening, and had an average uninterrupted speaking length of 2.42 seconds. PCP participation, listening, and length of uninterrupted speaking time were associated with significantly higher odds that their patients had controlled hypertension and diabetes and improvements in disease control over time. PCP-patient communication mediates this relationship. CONCLUSIONS: PCP-team communication is associated with patient health management. How team members speak with one another may be as important as the content of their communication.

The influence of peer beliefs on nurses' use of new health information technology: A social network analysis.

Implementation of health information technology fails at an alarming rate because intended users often choose not to use it. Implementation theory and frameworks suggest that social networks may influence individuals' use, but empirical study remains limited. Furthermore, neither theory nor research has identified whose beliefs within the network matter most for implementation. We examine the relationship between an individual's system use and the beliefs of his or her peers. We assess the relationship for two peer groups: the entire group of peers and the subset that shares the individual's beliefs about the system. We used data collected from an academic hospital in the United States that had recently implemented a bar code medication administration system, a technology meant to increase medication safety. We administered a survey to nurses (N = 207) in six clinical units approximately 3-5 months (April-June 2013) after the "go-live" of the system to identify peer groups and beliefs about system usefulness. We calculated mean peer belief for the entire peer group and sharedness of belief using a homophily measure. From the hospital's electronic health record system, we obtained nurses' system use during the 3-month data collection period. We used multivariable linear regression to examine relationships. We found no effect of mean peer beliefs on individual system use. However, sharedness of belief about usefulness was positively associated with individual system use. Individuals' own positive belief was only associated with greater system use when shared with peers. Our findings indicate a significant role of social networks in implementation, and specifically that shared beliefs between an individual and his or her peer network may be critical to implementation success, more so than the beliefs across the entire peer group. Reinforcement by the social network appears to dictate whether individuals' own beliefs translate into system use.

A quasi-experiment assessing the six-months effects of a nurse care coordination program on patient care experiences and clinician teamwork in community health centers.

BACKGROUND: Recognition that coordination among healthcare providers is associated with better quality of care and lower costs has increased interest in interventions designed to improve care coordination. One intervention is to add care coordination to nurses' role in a formal way. Little is known about effects of this approach, which tends to be pursued by small organizations and those in lower-resource settings. We assessed effects of this approach on care experiences of high-risk patients (those most in need of care coordination) and clinician teamwork during the first 6 months of use. METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental study using a clustered, controlled pre-post design. Changes in staff and patient experiences at six community health center practice locations that introduced the added-role approach for high-risk patients were compared to changes in six locations without the program in the same health system. In the pre-period (6 months before intervention training) and post-period (about 6 months after intervention launch, following 3 months of training), we surveyed clinical staff (N = 171) and program-qualifying patients (3007 pre-period; 2101 post-period, including 113 who were enrolled during the program's first 6 months). Difference-in-differences models examined study outcomes: patient reports about care experiences and clinician-reported teamwork. We assessed frequency of patient office visits to validate access and implementation, and contextual factors (training, resources, and compatibility with other work) that might explain results. RESULTS: Patient care experiences across all high-risk patients did not improve significantly (p > 0.05). They improved somewhat for program enrollees, 5% above baseline reports (p = 0.07). Staff-perceived teamwork did not change significantly (p = 0.12). Office visits increased significantly for enrolled patients (p < 0.001), affirming program implementation (greater accessing of care). Contextual factors were not reported as problematic, except that 41% of nurses reported incompatibility between care coordination and other job demands. Over 75% of nurses reported adequate training and resources. CONCLUSIONS: There were some positive effects of adding care coordination to nurses' role within 6 months of implementation, suggesting value in this improvement strategy. Addressing compatibility between coordination and other job demands is important when implementing this approach to coordination.

Voluntary Hospital Reporting of Performance in Cancer Care: Does Volume Make a Difference?

Little is known about which hospitals participate in voluntary public reporting of quality processes and what influences their performance, particularly in cancer care. We hypothesize that patient volume is positively associated with both reporting and performance. In 2014, when Pennsylvania became the first and only state to have public reporting for cancer care, it became possible to test these hypotheses, which we did in cross-sectional study of the 72 Pennsylvania hospitals accredited by the Commission on Cancer. Hospitals that publicly reported their performance (57 of 72) had higher patient volumes than hospitals that did not release performance. Among reporting hospitals, no association was found between patient volume and performance on process of care metrics. These findings suggest the importance of attending to volume effects in public reporting of cancer care and recognizing that volume is not a predictor of performance for reporting hospitals, which indicates the need for research to identify other factors that differentiate performance within and across reporting and nonreporting hospitals.

Moving organizational theory in health care forward: A discussion with suggestions for critical advancements.

In May 2019, scholars in management and organization of health care organizations and systems met. The opening plenary was a moderated discussion with five distinguished scholars who have exemplified pushing the frontier of organizational theory and practice throughout their careers: Ann Barry Flood of Dartmouth College, John Kimberly of the University of Pennsylvania, Anthony (Tony) Kovner of New York University, Stephen (Steve) Shortell of University of California at Berkeley, and Jacqueline (Jackie) Zinn of Temple University. The discussion was moderated by Ingrid Nembhard of the University of Pennsylvania. The goal of the plenary was to provide an opportunity to hear from senior members of the health care management community how they think about organizational behavior and theory, changes that they have observed, research gaps that they see, and lessons for research and practice that they have learned. This article is the transcript of that plenary discussion. It is shared to capture the intellectual history of the field and help surface the critical advancements still needed in organizational theory and practice in health care. The closing remarks of the panelists summarize recommendations for both practice and scholarship in health care organization management.

Differences in work environment for staff as an explanation for variation in central line bundle compliance in intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: Central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) are a common and costly quality problem, and their prevention is a national priority. A decade ago, researchers identified an evidence-based bundle of practices that reduce CLABSIs. Compliance with this bundle remains low in many hospitals. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess whether differences in core aspects of work environments-workload, quality of relationships, and prioritization of quality-are associated with variation in maximal CLABSI bundle compliance, that is, compliance 95%-100% of the time in intensive care units (ICUs). METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A cross-sectional study of hospital medical-surgical ICUs in the United States was done. Data on work environment and bundle compliance were obtained from the Prevention of Nosocomial Infections and Cost-Effectiveness Refined Survey completed in 2011 by infection prevention directors, and data on ICU and hospital characteristics were obtained from the National Healthcare Safety Network. Factor and multilevel regression analyses were conducted. FINDINGS: Reasonable workload and prioritization of quality were positively associated with maximal CLABSI bundle compliance. High-quality relationships, although a significant predictor when evaluated apart from workload and prioritization of quality, had no significant effect after accounting for these two factors. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Aspects of the staff work environment are associated with maximal CLABSI bundle compliance in ICUs. Our results suggest that hospitals can foster improvement in ensuring maximal CLABSI bundle compliance-a crucial precursor to reducing CLABSI infection rates-by establishing reasonable workloads and prioritizing quality.

Professionalizing Healthcare Management: A Descriptive Case Study.

Despite international recognition of the importance of healthcare management in the development of high-performing systems, the path by which countries may develop and sustain a professional healthcare management workforce has not been articulated. Accordingly, we sought to identify a set of common themes in the establishment of a professional workforce of healthcare managers in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings using a descriptive case study approach. We draw on a historical analysis of the development of this profession in the United States and Ethiopia to identify five common themes in the professionalization of healthcare management: (1) a country context in which healthcare management is demanded; (2) a national framework that elevates a professional management role; (3) standards for healthcare management, and a monitoring function to promote adherence to standards; (4) a graduatelevel educational path to ensure a pipeline of well-prepared healthcare managers; and (5) professional associations to sustain and advance the field. These five components can to inform the creation of a long-term national strategy for the development of a professional cadre of heathcare managers in LMIC settings.