Measuring the work environment among healthcare professionals: Validation of the Dutch version of the Culture of Care Barometer.

OBJECTIVES: A positive work environment (WE) is paramount for healthcare employees to provide good quality care. To stimulate a positive work environment, employees' perceptions of the work environment need to be assessed. This study aimed to assess the reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the Culture of Care Barometer (CoCB-NL) survey in hospitals. METHODS: This longitudinal validation study explored content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, hypothesis testing for construct validity, and responsiveness. The study was conducted at seven departments in two Dutch university hospitals. The departments were included based on their managers' motivation to better understand their employees' perception of their WE. All employees of participating departments were invited to complete the survey (n = 1,730). RESULTS: The response rate was 63.2%. The content of the CoCB-NL was considered relevant and accessible by the respondents. Two factor models were found. First, confirmative factor analysis of the original four-factor structure showed an acceptable fit (X2 2006.49; df 399; p = <0.001; comparative fit index [CFI] 0.82; Tucker-Lewis index [TLI] 0.80; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] 0.09). Second, explanatory factor analysis revealed a five-factor model including 'organizational support', 'leadership', 'collegiality and teamwork', 'relationship with manager', and 'employee influence and development'. This model was confirmed and showed a better fit (X2 1552.93; df 395; p = < 0.00; CFI 0.87; TLI 0.86; RMSEA 0.07). Twelve out of eighteen hypotheses were confirmed. Responsiveness was assumed between the measurements. CONCLUSIONS: The CoCB-NL is a valid and reliable instrument for identifying areas needing improvement in the WE. Furthermore, the CoCB-NL appears to be responsive and therefore useful for longitudinal evaluations of healthcare employees' work environments.

Defining a positive work environment for hospital healthcare professionals: A Delphi study.

INTRODUCTION: The work environment of healthcare professionals is important for good patient care and is receiving increasing attention in scientific research. A clear and unambiguous understanding of a positive work environment, as perceived by healthcare professionals, is crucial for gaining systematic objective insights into the work environment. The aim of this study was to gain consensus on the concept of a positive work environment in the hospital. METHODS: This was a three-round Delphi study to establish consensus on what defines a positive work environment. A literature review and 17 semi-structured interviews with experts (transcribed and analyzed by open and thematic coding) were used to generate items for the Delphi study. RESULTS: The literature review revealed 228 aspects that were clustered into 48 work environment elements, 38 of which were mentioned in the interviews also. After three Delphi rounds, 36 elements were regarded as belonging to a positive work environment in the hospital. DISCUSSION: The work environment is a broad concept with several perspectives. Although all 36 elements are considered important for a positive work environment, they have different perspectives. Mapping the included elements revealed that no one work environment measurement tool includes all the elements. CONCLUSION: We identified 36 elements that are important for a positive work environment. This knowledge can be used to select the right measurement tool or to develop interventions for improving the work environment. However, the different perspectives of the work environment should be considered.

Talking about quality: exploring how 'quality' is conceptualized in European hospitals and healthcare systems.

BACKGROUND: Conceptualization of quality of care - in terms of what individuals, groups and organizations include in their meaning of quality, is an unexplored research area. It is important to understand how quality is conceptualised as a means to successfully implement improvement efforts and bridge potential disconnect in language about quality between system levels, professions, and clinical services. The aim is therefore to explore and compare conceptualization of quality among national bodies (macro level), senior hospital managers (meso level), and professional groups within clinical micro systems (micro level) in a cross-national study. METHODS: This cross-national multi-level case study combines analysis of national policy documents and regulations at the macro level with semi-structured interviews (383) and non-participant observation (803 hours) of key meetings and shadowing of staff at the meso and micro levels in ten purposively sampled European hospitals (England, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, and Norway). Fieldwork at the meso and micro levels was undertaken over a 12-month period (2011-2012) and different types of micro systems were included (maternity, oncology, orthopaedics, elderly care, intensive care, and geriatrics). RESULTS: The three quality dimensions clinical effectiveness, patient safety, and patient experience were incorporated in macro level policies in all countries. Senior hospital managers adopted a similar conceptualization, but also included efficiency and costs in their conceptualization of quality. 'Quality' in the forms of measuring indicators and performance management were dominant among senior hospital managers (with clinical and non-clinical background). The differential emphasis on the three quality dimensions was strongly linked to professional roles, personal ideas, and beliefs at the micro level. Clinical effectiveness was dominant among physicians (evidence-based approach), while patient experience was dominant among nurses (patient-centered care, enough time to talk with patients). Conceptualization varied between micro systems depending on the type of services provided. CONCLUSION: The quality conceptualization differed across system levels (macro-meso-micro), among professional groups (nurses, doctors, managers), and between the studied micro systems in our ten sampled European hospitals. This entails a managerial alignment challenge translating macro level quality definitions into different local contexts.

Prospects for comparing European hospitals in terms of quality and safety: lessons from a comparative study in five countries.

PURPOSE: Being able to compare hospitals in terms of quality and safety between countries is important for a number of reasons. For example, the 2011 European Union directive on patients' rights to cross-border health care places a requirement on all member states to provide patients with comparable information on health-care quality, so that they can make an informed choice. Here, we report on the feasibility of using common process and outcome indicators to compare hospitals for quality and safety in five countries (England, Portugal, The Netherlands, Sweden and Norway). MAIN CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED: The cross-country comparison identified the following seven challenges with respect to comparing the quality of hospitals across Europe: different indicators are collected in each country; different definitions of the same indicators are used; different mandatory versus voluntary data collection requirements are in place; different types of organizations oversee data collection; different levels of aggregation of data exist (country, region and hospital); different levels of public access to data exist; and finally, hospital accreditation and licensing systems differ in each country. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that if patients and policymakers are to compare the quality and safety of hospitals across Europe, then further work is urgently needed to agree the way forward. Until then, patients will not be able to make informed choices about where they receive their health care in different countries, and some governments will remain in the dark about the quality and safety of care available to their citizens as compared to that available in neighbouring countries.

Computer screen saver hand hygiene information curbs a negative trend in hand hygiene behavior.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate hand hygiene among health care workers is the most important infection prevention measure; however, compliance is generally low. Gain-framed messages (ie, messages that emphasize the benefits of hand hygiene rather than the risks of noncompliance) may be most effective, but have not been tested. METHODS: The study was conducted in a 27-bed neonatal intensive care unit. We performed an interrupted time series analysis of objectively measured hand disinfection events. We used electronic devices in hand alcohol dispensers, which continuously documented the frequency of hand disinfection events. In addition, hand hygiene compliance before and after the intervention period were directly observed. RESULTS: The negative trend in hand hygiene events per patient-day before the intervention (decrease by 2.3 [standard error, 0.5] per week) changed to a significant positive trend (increase of 1.5 [0.5] per week) after the intervention (P < .001). The direct observations confirmed these results, showing a significant improvement in hand hygiene compliance from 193 of 303 (63.6%) observed hand hygiene events at pretest to 201 of 281 (71.5%) at posttest. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that gain-framed messages concerning hand hygiene presented on screen savers may improve hand hygiene compliance.

A longitudinal, multi-level comparative study of quality and safety in European hospitals: the QUASER study protocol.

BACKGROUND: although there is a wealth of information available about quality improvement tools and techniques in healthcare there is little understanding about overcoming the challenges of day-to-day implementation in complex organisations like hospitals. The 'Quality and Safety in Europe by Research' (QUASER) study will investigate how hospitals implement, spread and sustain quality improvement, including the difficulties they face and how they overcome them. The overall aim of the study is to explore relationships between the organisational and cultural characteristics of hospitals and how these impact on the quality of health care; the findings will be designed to help policy makers, payers and hospital managers understand the factors and processes that enable hospitals in Europe to achieve-and sustain-high quality services for their patients. METHODS/DESIGN: in-depth multi-level (macro, meso and micro-system) analysis of healthcare quality policies and practices in 5 European countries, including longitudinal case studies in a purposive sample of 10 hospitals. The project design has three major features: • a working definition of quality comprising three components: clinical effectiveness, patient safety and patient experience • a conceptualisation of quality as a human, social, technical and organisational accomplishment • an emphasis on translational research that is evidence-based and seeks to provide strategic and practical guidance for hospital practitioners and health care policy makers in the European Union. Throughout the study we will adopt a mixed methods approach, including qualitative (in-depth, narrative-based, ethnographic case studies using interviews, and direct non-participant observation of organisational processes) and quantitative research (secondary analysis of safety and quality data, for example: adverse incident reporting; patient complaints and claims). DISCUSSION: the protocol is based on the premise that future research, policy and practice need to address the sociology of improvement in equal measure to the science and technique of improvement, or at least expand the discipline of improvement to include these critical organisational and cultural processes. We define the 'organisational and cultural characteristics associated with better quality of care' in a broad sense that encompasses all the features of a hospital that might be hypothesised to impact upon clinical effectiveness, patient safety and/or patient experience.