Dataset Information

Understanding the Role of External Facilitation to Drive Quality Improvement for Stroke Care in Hospitals.

ABSTRACT: The use of external facilitation within the context of multicomponent quality improvement interventions (mQI) is growing. We aimed to evaluate the influence of external facilitation for improving the quality of acute stroke care. Clinicians from hospitals participating in mQI (Queensland, Australia) as part of the Stroke123 study were supported by external facilitators in a single, on-site workshop to review hospital performance against eight clinical processes of care (PoCs) collected in the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (AuSCR) and develop an action plan. Remote support (i.e., telephone/email) after the workshop was provided. As part of a process evaluation for Stroke123, we recorded the number and mode of contacts between clinicians and facilitators; type of support provided; and frequency of self-directed, hospital-level stroke registry data reviews. Analysis: We measured the association between amount/type of external facilitation, (i) development of action plans, and (ii) adherence to PoCs before and after the intervention using AuSCR data from 2010 to 2015. In total, 14/19 hospitals developed an action plan. There was no significant difference in amount or type of external facilitator support provided between hospitals that did, and did not, develop an action plan. There was no relationship between the amount of external facilitation and change in adherence to PoCs. Most (95%) hospitals accessed stroke registry performance data. In the Stroke123 study, the amount or type of external facilitation did not influence action plan development, and the amount of support did not influence the changes achieved in adherence to PoCs. Remote support may not add value for mQI.

SUBMITTER: Thayabaranathan T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8471416 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRelatively little guidance exists on how to use virtual implementation facilitation to successfully implement evidence-based practices and innovations into clinical programs. Yet virtual methods are increasingly common. They have potentially wider reach, emergent public health situations necessitate their use, and restrictions on resources can make them more attractive. We therefore outline a set of principles for virtual external implementation facilitation and a series of recommendations based on extensive experience successfully using virtual external implementation facilitation in a national program.Model and recommendationsSuccess in virtual external implementation facilitation may be achieved by facilitators applying three overarching principles: pilot everything, incorporate a model, and prioritize metacognition. Five practical principles also help: plan in advance, communicate in real time, build relationships, engage participants, and construct a virtual room for participants. We present eight concrete suggestions for enacting the practical principles: (1) assign key facilitation roles to facilitation team members to ensure the program runs smoothly; (2) create small cohorts of participants so they can have meaningful interactions; (3) provide clarity and structure for all participant interactions; (4) structure program content to ensure key points are described, reinforced, and practiced; (5) use visuals to supplement audio content; (6) build activities into the agenda that enable participants to immediately apply knowledge at their own sites, separate from the virtual experience; (7) create backup plans whenever possible; and (8) engage all participants in the program. These principles represent a novel conceptualization of virtual external implementation facilitation, giving structure to a process that has been, to date, inadequately described. The associated actions are demonstrably useful in supporting the principles and offer teams interested in virtual external implementation facilitation concrete methods by which to ensure success. Our examples stem from experiences in healthcare. But the principles can, in theory, be applied to virtual external implementation facilitation regardless of setting, as they and the associated actions are not setting specific.

Project description:Treatment of psychotic disorders consists primarily of second generation antipsychotics, which are associated with metabolic side effects such as overweight/obesity, diabetes, and dyslipidemia. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines recommend timely assessment and management of these conditions; however, research studies show deficits and delays in metabolic monitoring and management for these patients. This protocol article describes the project 'Monitoring and Management for Metabolic Side Effects of Antipsychotics,' which is testing an approach to implement recommendations for these practices.This project employs a cluster randomized clinical trial design to test effectiveness of an evidence-based quality improvement plus facilitation intervention. Eligible study sites were VA Medical Centers with ?300 patients started on a new antipsychotic prescription in a six-month period. A total of 12 sites, matched in pairs based on scores on an organizational practice survey, were then randomized within pairs to intervention or control conditions.Study participants include VA employees involved in metabolic monitoring and management of patients treated with antipsychotics at participating sites. The intervention involves researchers partnering with clinical stakeholders to facilitate tailoring of local implementation strategies to address barriers to metabolic side-effect monitoring and management. The intervention includes a Design Phase (initial site visit and subsequent development of a local implementation plan); Implementation Phase (guided by an experienced external facilitator); and a Sustainability Phase. Evaluation includes developmental, implementation-focused, progress-focused and interpretative formative evaluation components, as well as summative evaluation. Evaluation methods include surveys, qualitative data collection from provider participants, and quantitative data analysis of data for all patients prescribed a new antipsychotic medication at a study site who are due for monitoring or management of metabolic side effects during the study phases. Changes in rates of recommended monitoring and management actions at intervention and control sites will be compared using time series analyses.Improving monitoring for metabolic side effects of antipsychotics, as well as promoting timely evidence-based management when these effects emerge, will lead to improved patient safety and long-term outcomes. This article discusses key strengths and challenges of the study.NCT01875861.

Project description:IntroductionSurgical services are increasingly seen to reduce death and disability in Sub-Saharan Africa, where hospital-based mortality remains alarmingly high. This study explores two implementation approaches to improve the quality of perioperative care in a Tanzanian hospital. Effects were compared to a control group of two other hospitals in the region without intervention.MethodsAll hospitals conducted quality assessments with a Hospital Performance Assessment Tool. Changes in immediate outcome indicators after one and two years were compared to final outcome indicators such as Anaesthetic Complication Rate and Surgical Case Fatality Rate.ResultsImmediate outcome indicators for Preoperative Care in the intervention hospital improved (52.5% in 2009; 84.2% in 2011, p<0.001). Postoperative Inpatient Care initially improved to then decline again (63.3% in 2009; 70% in 2010; 58.6% in 2011). In the control group, preoperative care declined from 50.8% (2009) to 32.8% (2011, p <0.001), while postoperative care did not significantly change. Anaesthetic Complication Rate in the intervention hospital declined (1.89% before intervention; 0.96% after intervention, p = 0.006). Surgical Case Fatality Rate in the intervention hospital declined from 5.67% before intervention to 2.93% after intervention (p<0.0010). Surgical Case Fatality Rate in the control group was 4% before intervention and 3.8% after intervention (p = 0.411). Anaesthetic Complication Rate in the control group was not available.DiscussionImmediate outcome indicators initially improved, while at the same time final outcome declined (Surgical Case Fatality, Anaesthetic Complication Rate). Compared to the control group, final outcome improved more in the intervention hospital, although the effect was not significant over the whole study period. Documentation of final outcome indicators seemed inconsistent. Immediate outcome indicators seem more helpful to steer the Continuous Quality Improvement program.ConclusionSpecific interventions as part of Continuous Quality Improvement might lead to sustainable improvement of the quality of care, if embedded in a multi-faceted approach.

Dataset Information

Understanding the Role of External Facilitation to Drive Quality Improvement for Stroke Care in Hospitals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets