Designing effective governance for quality and safety in Canadian healthcare.

Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
Healthcare quarterly (Toronto, Ont.) 01/2010; 13(1):38-45. DOI: 10.12927/hcq.2013.21244
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Governing boards of healthcare organizations in Canada are accountable for the performance of their organization and provide oversight on their decisions. Traditionally, many healthcare boards have focused on finances and community relations and have deferred responsibility for quality of care to the medical or professional staff. This deferral reflects not only recognition of the expertise of clinical leaders on these issues but also the historical separation of responsibilities between the administration and the medical staff, the former being responsible for financial and operational issues, and the latter for quality of care.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Relatively little is known about how scorecards presenting performance indicators influence medication safety. We evaluated the effects of implementing a ward-level medication safety scorecard piloted in two English NHS hospitals and factors influencing these. We used a mixed methods, controlled before and after design. At baseline, wards were audited on medication safety indicators; during the 'feedback' phase scorecard results were presented to intervention wards on a weekly basis over 7 weeks. We interviewed 49 staff, including clinicians and managers, about scorecard implementation. At baseline, 18.7% of patients (total n=630) had incomplete allergy documentation; 53.4% of patients (n=574) experienced a drug omission in the preceding 24 h; 22.5% of omitted doses were classified as 'critical'; 22.1% of patients (n=482) either had ID wristbands not reflecting their allergy status or no ID wristband; and 45.3% of patients (n=237) had drugs that were either unlabelled or labelled for another patient in their drug lockers. The quantitative analysis found no significant improvement in intervention wards following scorecard feedback. Interviews suggested staff were interested in scorecard feedback and described process and culture changes. Factors influencing scorecard implementation included 'normalisation' of errors, study duration, ward leadership, capacity to engage and learning preferences. Presenting evidence-based performance indicators may potentially influence staff behaviour. Several practical and cultural factors may limit feedback effectiveness and should be considered when developing improvement interventions. Quality scorecards should be designed with care, attending to evidence of indicators' effectiveness and how indicators and overall scorecard composition fit the intended audience.
    BMJ quality & safety 09/2013; · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • Australian health review: a publication of the Australian Hospital Association 11/2013; · 1.00 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Significance: The importance of leadership to influence nurses' use of clinical guidelines has been well documented. However, little is known about how to develop and evaluate leadership interventions for guideline use. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to pilot a leadership intervention designed to influence nurses' use of guideline recommendations when caring for patients with diabetic foot ulcers in home care nursing. This paper reports on the feasibility of implementing the study protocol, the trial findings related to nursing process outcomes, and leadership behaviors. Methods: A mixed methods pilot study was conducted with a post-only cluster randomized controlled trial and descriptive qualitative interviews. Four units were randomized to control or experimental groups. Clinical and management leadership teams participated in a 12-week leadership intervention (workshop, teleconferences). Participants received summarized chart audit data, identified goals for change, and created a team leadership action. Criteria to assess feasibility of the protocol included: design, intervention, measures, and data collection procedures. For the trial, chart audits compared differences in nursing process outcomes. Primary outcome: 8-item nursing assessments score. Secondary outcome: 5-item score of nursing care based on goals for change identified by intervention participants. Qualitative interviews described leadership behaviors that influenced guideline use. Results: Conducting this pilot showed some aspects of the study protocol were feasible, while others require further development. Trial findings observed no significant difference in the primary outcome. A significant increase was observed in the 5-item score chosen by intervention participants (p= 0.02). In the experimental group more relations-oriented leadership behaviors, audit and feedback and reminders were described as leadership strategies. Conclusions: Findings suggest that a leadership intervention has the potential to influence nurses' use of guideline recommendations, but further work is required to refine the intervention and outcome measures. A taxonomy of leadership behaviors is proposed to inform future research.
    Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing 05/2012; · 1.35 Impact Factor