Complex programme evaluation of a 'new care model' vanguard: a shared commitment to quality improvement in an integrated health and care context.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Fowler Davis S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7064121 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Complex programme evaluation of a 'new care model' vanguard: a shared commitment to quality improvement in an integrated health and care context.
Fowler Davis Sally S Hinde Sebastian S Ariss Steven S
BMJ open 20200308 3
NHS vanguards, under-pressure to perform, required better contracting and data management arrangements with evaluation teams, to ensure that integrated service outcomes could be reported effectively. This communication reflects the experience of evaluating an NHS vanguard and suggests how academic teams can improve capacity for complex programme evaluation of rapid improvements in integrated services. This should be based on a shared commitment to data collection and management. Also, robust kno ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAn increasing number of older people reach the end of life in care homes. The aim of this study is to explore the perceived benefits of, and barriers to, implementation of the Gold Standards Framework for Care Homes (GSFCH), a quality improvement programme in palliative care.MethodsNine care homes involved in the GSFCH took part. We conducted semi-structured interviews with nine care home managers, eight nurses, nine care assistants, eleven residents and seven of their family members. We used the Framework approach to qualitative analysis. The analysis was deductive based on the key tasks of the GSFCH, the 7Cs: communication, coordination, control of symptoms, continuity, continued learning, carer support, and care of the dying. This enabled us to consider benefits of, and barriers to, individual components of the programme, as well as of the programme as a whole.ResultsPerceived benefits of the GSFCH included: improved symptom control and team communication; finding helpful external support and expertise; increasing staff confidence; fostering residents' choice; and boosting the reputation of the home. Perceived barriers included: increased paperwork; lack of knowledge and understanding of end of life care; costs; and gaining the cooperation of GPs. Many of the tools and tasks in the GSFCH focus on improving communication. Participants described effective communication within the homes, and with external providers such as general practitioners and specialists in palliative care. However, many had experienced problems with general practitioners. Although staff described the benefits of supportive care registers, coding predicted stage of illness and advance care planning, which included improved communication, some felt the need for more experience of using these, and there were concerns about discussing death.ConclusionsMost of the barriers described by participants are relevant to other interventions to improve end of life care in care homes. There is a need to investigate the impact of quality improvement programmes in care homes, such as the GSFCH, on a wider range of outcomes for residents and their families, and to monitor the sustainability of any resulting improvements. It is also important to explore the impact of the different components of these complex interventions.
| S-EPMC3127758 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A knowledgeable and motivated workforce is critical for health systems to provide high-quality services. Many low- and middle-income countries face shortages in human resources and low health worker motivation but are also home to a burgeoning number of quality improvement (QI) programmes. This study evaluates whether and how motivation and clinical knowledge in three cadres of health workers changed in the context of a QI programme for maternal and newborn health in Ethiopia. This mixed-methods study used a pre-post comparison group design with matched comparison areas. We interviewed 395 health workers at baseline in April 2018 and 404 at endline in June 2019 from seven districts (woredas) with QI and seven comparison woredas. Three cadres were interviewed: health extension workers, facility-based skilled midlevel maternal and newborn care providers, and non-patient-facing staff. A qualitative component sought to triangulate and further elucidate quantitative findings using in-depth interviews with 22 health workers. Motivation was assessed quantitatively, exploratory factor analysis was used to categorize motivation dimensions, and regression-based difference-in-difference analyses were conducted. Knowledge was assessed through a clinical vignette. Qualitative data were analysed in a deductive process based on a framework derived from quantitative results. Although knowledge of the QI programme was high (79%) among participants from QI woreda at endline, participation in QI teams was lower (56%). There was strong evidence that health worker knowledge increased more in areas with QI than comparison areas. Three motivation dimensions emerged from the data: (1) 'helping others', (2) 'pride and satisfaction' and (3) 'external recognition and support'. We found strong evidence that motivation across these factors improved in both QI and comparison areas, with weak evidence of greater increases in comparison areas. Qualitative data suggested the QI programme may have improved motivation by allowing staff to provide better care. This study suggests that although QI programmes can increase health worker knowledge, there may be little effect on motivation. Programme evaluations should measure a wide range of outcomes to fully understand their impact.
| S-EPMC8597962 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith innovation in service delivery increasingly viewed as crucial to the long-term sustainability of health systems, NHS England launched an ambitious new model of care (Vanguard) programme in 2015. Supported by a £350 million transformation fund, 50 Vanguard sites were to act as pilots for innovation in service delivery, to move quickly to change the way that services were delivered, breaking down barriers between sectors and improving the coordination and delivery of care.MethodsAs part of a national evaluation of the Vanguard programme, we conducted an evidence synthesis to assess the nature and quality of locally commissioned evaluations. With access to a secure, online hub used by the Vanguard and other integrated care initiatives, two researchers retrieved any documents from a locally commissioned evaluation for inclusion. All identified documents were downloaded and logged, and details of the evaluators, questions, methodological approaches and limitations in design and/or reporting were extracted. As included evaluations varied in nature and type, a narrative synthesis was undertaken.ResultsWe identified a total of 115 separate reports relating to the locally commissioned evaluations. Five prominent issues relating to evaluation conduct were identified across included reports: use of logic models, number and type of evaluation questions posed, data sharing and information governance, methodological challenges and evaluation reporting in general. A combination of resource, data and time constraints means that evaluations often attempted to but did not fully address the wide range of questions posed by individual Vanguards.ConclusionsSignificant investment was made in independent local evaluations of the Vanguard programme by NHS England. This synthesis represents the only comprehensive attempt to capture methodological learning and may serve as a key resource for researchers and policy-makers seeking to understand investigating large-scale system change, both within the NHS and internationally. PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42017069282).
| S-EPMC8042862 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:The lack of understanding of how complex integrated care programmes achieve their outcomes due to the lack of acceptable methods leads to difficulties in the development, implementation, adaptation and scaling up of similar interventions. In this study, we evaluate an integrated care network, the National University Health System (NUHS) Regional Health System (RHS), consisting of acute hospitals, step down care, primary care providers, social services and community partners using a theory-driven realist evaluation approach. This study aims to examine how and for whom the NUHS-RHS works to improve healthcare utilisations, outcomes, care experiences and reduce healthcare costs. By using a realist approach that balances the needs of context-specific evaluation with international comparability, this study carries the potential to address current research gaps. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This evaluation will be conducted in three research phases: (1) development of initial programme theory (IPT) underlying the NUHS-RHS; (2) testing of programme theory using empirical data; and (3) refinement of IPT. IPT was elicited and developed through reviews of programme documents, informal discussions and in-depth interviews with relevant stakeholders. Then, a convergent parallel mixed method study will be conducted to assess context (C), mechanisms (M) and outcomes (O) to test the IPT. Findings will then be analysed according to the realist evaluation formula of CMO in which findings on the context, mechanisms will be used to explain the outcomes. Finally, based on findings gathered, IPT will be refined to highlight how to improve the NUHS-RHS by detailing what works (outcome), as well as how (mechanisms) and under what conditions (context). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The National Healthcare Group, Singapore, Domain Specific Review Board reviewed and approved this study protocol. Study results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences and internally to NUHS-RHS and Ministry of Health, Singapore.
| S-EPMC5855239 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Shared decision making (SDM) is at the core of policy measures for making healthcare person-centred. However, the context-sensitive nature of the challenges in integrated stroke care calls for research to facilitate its implementation. This before and after evaluation study identifies factors for implementation and concludes with key recommendations for adoption. METHODS:Data were collected at the start and end of an implementation programme in five stroke services (December 2017 to July 2018). The SDM implementation programme consisted of training for healthcare professionals (HCPs), tailored support, development of decision aids and a social map of local stroke care. Participating HCPs were included in the evaluation study: A questionnaire was sent to 25 HCPs at baseline, followed by 11 in-depth interviews. Data analysis was based on theoretical models for implementation and 51 statements were formulated as a result. Finally, all HCPs were asked to validate and to quantify these statements and to formulate recommendations for further adoption. RESULTS:The majority of respondents said that training of all HCPs is essential. Feedback on consultation and peer observation are considered to help improve performance. In addition, HCPs stated that SDM should also be embedded in multidisciplinary meetings, whereas implementation in the organisation could be facilitated by appointed ambassadors. Time was not seen as an inhibiting factor. According to HCPs, negotiating patients' treatment decisions improves adherence to therapy. Despite possible cognitive or communications issues, all are convinced patients with stroke can be involved in a SDM-process. Relatives play an important role too in the further adoption of SDM. HCPs provided eight recommendations for adoption of SDM in integrated stroke care. CONCLUSIONS:HCPs in our study indicated it is feasible to implement SDM in integrated stroke care and several well-known implementation activities could improve SDM in stroke care. Special attention should be given to the following activities: (1) the appointment of knowledge brokers, (2) agreements between HCPs on roles and responsibilities for specific decision points in the integrated stroke care chain and (3) the timely investigation of patient's preferences in the care process - preferably before starting treatment through discussions in a multidisciplinary meeting.
| S-EPMC6896582 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe nationwide integration of palliative care best practices into general care settings is challenging but important in improving the quality of palliative care. This is why the Dutch National Quality Improvement Programme for Palliative Care has recently been launched. This four-year programme consists of about 70 implementation trajectories of best practices. A large evaluation study has been set up to evaluate this national programme and separate implementation trajectories.Methods/designThis paper presents the protocol of the evaluation study consisting of a quantitative effect evaluation and a qualitative process evaluation. The effect evaluation has a pre-test post-test design, with measurements before implementation (month 0) and after implementation (month 9) of a best practice. Patients are eligible if they have a life expectancy of less than six months and/or if they are undergoing palliative treatment and provided they are physically and mentally capable of responding to questionnaires. Bereaved relatives are eligible if they have been involved in the care of a deceased patient who died after a sickbed between six weeks and six months ago. Three types of measurement instruments are used: (1) numerical rating scales for six symptoms (pain, fatigue, breathlessness, obstipation, sadness and anxiety), (2) the Consumer Quality Index Palliative Care - patient version and (3) the version for bereaved relatives.The process evaluation consists of analysing implementation plans and reports of the implementation, and individual and group interviews with healthcare professionals. This will be done nine to eleven months after the start of the implementation of a best practice.DiscussionThis mixed-method evaluation study gives more insight into the effects of the total programme and the separate implementation trajectories. However, evaluation of large quality improvement programmes is complicated due to changing, non-controlled environments. Therefore, it is important that an effect evaluation is combined with a process evaluation.Trial registrationNTR-4085.
| S-EPMC3936932 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Improvement work can be used in preschools to enrich outdoor environment for children's better health. Effective improvement work can facilitate the necessary changes, but little is known about professionals' experiences of participation in improvement interventions. The aim was to evaluate how preschool staff experience quality improvement work, using the Breakthrough Series Collaborative improvement programme, to enhance outdoor environments. METHODS:An improvement intervention using a breakthrough collaborative was performed at 9 preschools in Sweden and examined with a longitudinal mixed method design. Staff completed questionnaires on 4 occasions (n=45 participants) and interviews took place after the intervention (n=16 participants). RESULTS:The intervention was successful in the sense that the staff were content with the learning seminars, and they had triggered physical changes in the outdoor environment. They integrated the quality improvement work with their ordinary work and increasingly involved the children. The staff tested improvement tools but did not find them entirely appropriate for their work, because they preferred existing methods for reflection. CONCLUSIONS:The challenges in quality improvement work seem to be similar across contexts. Using the Breakthrough Series Collaborative in a public health intervention is promising but needs to be integrated with preunderstandings, current reflections and quality tools and models.
| S-EPMC7445333 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hip fracture is one of the most serious consequences of falls in the elderly, with a mortality of 10% at one month and 30% at one year. Elderly patients with hip fractures have complex medical, surgical, and rehabilitation needs, and a well-coordinated multidisciplinary team approach is essential for the best outcome. The model of best practice for hip fracture care is set out in the Orthopaedic Blue Book and is incentivised by the best practice tariff. In 2009 to 2010, only 39.6% of our patients were being operated on within 36 hours, 19% achieved best practice tariff [1], and mortality was 7.8%. We were ranked as one of the worst hospitals to achieve best practice tariff [1] and our mortality was average. The orthogeriatrics team at Ashford & St Peter's NHS Trust (SPH) was implemented in 2010. Through a system redesign, regular governance meetings, audits and quality improvement projects, we have managed to improve care for our patients and reduce mortality. Over the last three years we have successfully achieved best care for our hip fracture patients, demonstrating a steady improvement in our attainment of the best practice tariff and a reduction in mortality to 5.3% in 2013, which ranks us amongst the best trusts nationally.
| S-EPMC4949608 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSevere infection is one of the most common causes of critical illness. Healthcare-associated infections complicating critical illness bring the additional challenge of multidrug resistance. However, England lacks a national surveillance system for infections in intensive care units. Prior experience with surveillance systems suggests that they are most effective when placed within a collaborative quality improvement framework.MethodA national survey of adult, paediatric and neonatal intensive care doctors, nurses, microbiologists and infection control practitioners was undertaken throughout the UK to determine stakeholder engagement.ResultsOf 763 respondents (80% ICU physicians; 8% nurses) from 158 hospital Trusts across the UK, 721 (94.4%) supported establishing a surveillance system; 63.5% preferred that data collection be mandatory; 47.5% considered that the work should be undertaken within existing resources. Respondents prioritised catheter-associated and multidrug resistant infections. Free-text responses demonstrated strong support for using the data for epidemiological information and benchmarking for quality improvement.DiscussionThe survey provides a satisfactory foundation for establishing a national surveillance system for infection prevention and control in critical care in England.
| S-EPMC5606375 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionObstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASI) can have severe debilitating consequences to women and health systems. The OASI Care Bundle quality improvement programme was introduced in 16 maternity units across England, Scotland and Wales (January 2017 to March 2018) to address increasing OASI rates.ObjectivesTo explore clinicians' (midwives' and obstetricians') perspectives of the OASI Care Bundle with respect to (1) acceptability, (2) feasibility, and (3) sustainability.DesignA qualitative exploratory study using focus groups methodology.SettingA total of 16 focus groups were conducted in 16 maternity units in England, Scotland and Wales where the OASI Care Bundle was implemented. Focus groups took place approximately 3 months following initial implementation of the care bundle in each unit.ParticipantsA total of 101 clinicians participated, with an average of six per focus group. Participants volunteered to take part and compromised of 37 obstetricians and 64 midwives (including eight students). The majority were female and the mean age was 36.5 years.ResultsFour main themes emerged: 'Implementation strategies', 'Opportunities to use the OASI Care Bundle', 'Does current practice need to change?' and 'Perceptions of what women want'. Midwives were more likely than obstetricians to report themes alluding to 'what women want' and variations in intrapartum perineal protection techniques. Both professional groups reported similar views of other themes, in particular regarding the supporting clinical evidence. Gaps were identified in clinicians' knowledge and experience of intrapartum perineal management.ConclusionsAdoption of the OASI Care Bundle was associated with a number of cognitive and interpersonal factors, such as personal values, interprofessional working and how the intervention was launched; which both facilitated and impeded adoption. The 'what women want' theme has implications for maternal autonomy and needs further exploration. Our findings can be used by similar initiatives to reduce perineal trauma both nationally and internationally.Trial registration numberISCTRN 12143325; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN12143325.
| S-EPMC7482496 | biostudies-literature