Designing social media impact; a challenge for healthcare improvers

Social media is the in thing in healthcare organisations - Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn etc. These systems have been around for 5 years or more but are now catching on in healthcare as they are seen as a method for sharing messages quickly and a way to bring diverse and segregated communities together. And this works well.

The challenge is to integrate the use of social media into the mindset of the quality improver.  The Improvement Model asks three questions - all of which are relevant for social media use:

1. What are we trying to accomplish?
2. How will we know its an improvement?
3. What changes can we make that will result in an improvement?

If you're starting out using, say Twitter, and you're in a healthcare quality improvement role the have a think about:

• What do you want to achieve? What is your purpose in using Twitter? Do you want to discover new info from others, link to others, use the media as a broadcast system, raise awareness, raise your own profile... etc? You need to have a purpose.
• How will you know it's an improvement? In the Twitter case, how will you know whether you are reaching your purpose / objectives and in a way that's better than what you do now? It really helps to think about this.  How will you measure your progress? How will you learn? Will you be using an analytics system to learn about what works (classic PDSA processes work very well for understanding how Twitter can work for you).
• Linked to the measures above, how will you maintain your learning and continue to get better and better at using Twitter?

In my experience it's best to thing through purpose and practice as part of starting on the social media road. An online social media account where nothing happens tends not to be a good strategy.

Paper: Improving organizational climate for quality and quality of care: does membership in a collaborative help?

I'm always banging on about the need to publish "negative" results - well, I'm pleased to see this paper has received some air time. The authors investigated whether teams that were a member of a collaborative improvement process ended up with changes in their local organisational culture.  The answer is mostly a "no".

"There was no significant effect of collaborative membership on quality-oriented climate and mixed effects on service quality. Doctors' ratings improved significantly more in intervention clinics than in control clinics, staff helpfulness improved less, and timeliness of care declined more. Ratings of doctor-patient communication and willingness to recommend doctor were not significantly different between intervention and comparison clinics."

Improving organizational climate for quality and quality of care: does membership in a collaborative help?

Paper: Measuring organizational and individual factors thought to influence the success of quality improvement in primary care: a systematic review of instruments

Ah, context. Context matters in healthcare interventions and so many improvement projects and similar interventions ignore context. This paper,  Measuring organizational and individual factors thought to influence the success of quality improvement in primary care: a systematic review of instruments, is important because it attempts to discover measures that influence interventions into account. The results are mixed.

"We identified 186 potentially relevant instruments, 152 of which were analysed to develop the taxonomy. Eighty-four instruments measured constructs relevant to primary care, with content measuring CQI implementation and use (19 instruments), organizational context (51 instruments), and individual factors (21 instruments). Forty-one instruments were included for full review. Development methods were often pragmatic, rather than systematic and theory-based, and evidence supporting measurement properties was limited."

Implementation Science 2012, 7:121

What happens when your quality improvement project is too long

Quality improvement projects have traditionally been 18 months long - at least that's my experience in the healthcare in the NHS in England. I expect they are that length of time because it is about the right length of time to second someone into the role of project leader. After 15 years of experience, I believe this is far too long for a QI project.




The problems with 18 month projects

• they take 18 months... 
• over-work the process; carry out redundant tasks to fill the time (every project leader wants to look good)
• too much emphasis on innovation and clever solutions, that are difficult for others to adopt
• difficult to maintain focus over so many months
• many clinical staff are unwilling to commit to the project
• the context changes  reforms, new organisations, new care methods - all come into play during the period of the project

Instead, I advocate the 90 day project. This is enough time for the average team to implement the average type of changes; and average matters. Most teams can imagine 90 days and are more likely to commit to making the effort to improve a targeted area. They will know within 90 days whether their efforts were worth it. 90 day projects need lots of planning by the project leader, though this can be done with minimal intervention with the clinical team, leaving them to spend more time with patients. They are best done with known best practices that are known to work in a similar context.

For more info on 90 day projects from this blog:

1. What are 90 day projects
2. How to implement 90 day projects

Or hang in there for my new book on 90 day projects which will be out in January 2013.

Book Review: Overtreated by Shannon Brownlee

The subtiutle of this book is "Why too much medicine is making us sicker and poorer". This book was quite shocking. I know there is a lot of what goes on in healthcare that is unnecessary yet to find a huge amount of detail and information in one place really put the issue into perspective. It is focused mainly on the USA though there are many parallels with other health systems.

Throughout the book, the author provides stories and examples to illustrate the data and statistics that without the stories would appear cold and less shocking.

As I read through the book, particularly in the early chapters I found myself going "I know him/her"! Shannon Brownlee hooks a fair amount of the debate onto the actions of some of the current health leaders in the USA (you might like to read the book to see if you are mentioned...!) There is an excellent chapter on the VA Healthcare systems, how it has improved and in many cases how it is an example of how healthcare in the USA could look and feel.

Chapters include:

• Too much medicine: complelling arguments as to why population based healthcare would be a real improvement
• The most dangerous place: beware the hospital and what might happen
• Your local hospital: how uncoordinated care and overtreatment results in poor outcomes
• Broken hearts: how the latest fad takes root, based on economics
• The desperate cure: an argument for evidence based care if there ever was one
• The limits of seeing: an expose on the limits to radiology tests
• The persuaders: mmm who is influencing whom, and why?
• Money, drugs and lies: why not to believe everything published in journals
• The doctor isn't in: all about managed care
• When less is more: some ideas to cope with over-capacity and overtreatment in the USA

This book is a must for every health care improver who believes their own project is making a difference... The strategic and tactical issues raised in it really provide a new perspective.

Book Review: Sustaining lean healthcare programme; a practical survival guide - Eaton & Phillip

Different book styles appeal differently, to different people. This one appealed to me because it is relatively short (94 pages plus appendices), well organised, uses bullet points and lists, checklists, diagrams and has some short examples to illustrate points.

Contents include:

1. Where are you on your journey
2. Why do only 24% succeed?
3. Going Lean
4. The top ten signs of a failing programme
5. Creating a lean healthcare organisation
6. Four key checklists
7. The next eight things to do...

So do only 25% succeed? The authors suggest there are 8 critical success categories Communications. resources, involvement, training, implementation, compass, achievement and leadership (yes, these do spell "critical"). If you like wordplay then read the book and discover PRISM, CAD, VSE, RIE, RPE, FIT, FMEA etc. Not as bad as it looks in a list here. I found them a good description, and sometimes reminder, of basic principles.

The chapter on the top 10 signs of a failing program is easily read. For each reason there is an explanation of what you may experience, why it happens and then what you can do about it.

The four checklists you need? One each on people, success, tools and culture. Nothing really new to me, just nicely organised.

I particularly liked the Appendices which included key lean phrases and concepts (worth the price of the book for its organisation and simplicity), audit form, guide to common saying (fabulous!), and then a number of "how to" guides.

I know Mark Eaton has actually implemented lean in healthcare. This book is a demonstration that when written by someone who has got their hands dirty it turns into valuable desktop reference.

Evidence: Quality Improvement Training

The Health Foundation has released a useful, and I think important, scan of the literature surrounding the strategy, content and process of training others in quality improvement. The document is a comprehensive and well organised summary of their scan of an enormous number of papers.  You can download the 52 page PDF from their website.

What  I liked about this literature scan is their focus on the impact of training. If you are responsible for organising or delivering quality improvement training then I recommend this literature review.

Report: Virtual QI Collaborative

It seems to have taken years for the QI family round the world to gain their trust in virtual improvement programs. My personal experience is they can work as effectively as face-to-face programs, although they need to be designed to work in a different way and need proper virtual facilitation.

There's a useful report about a virtual QI collaborative from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The results look pretty good to be.

Run Charts: How to create and interpret

Managing data in an improvement project often feels like it is some magical craft, with spells, secrets and strange ingredients. But this isn't true. A run chart is the most basic and the most important analysis tool in your improvement armoury.

BMJ Quality & Safety have a very useful article with instructions on how to create a run chart and how to interpret it: click here to go to the article

Quality Improvement Collaboratives - New Paper

There's a new paper out (see below) which comes to a conclusion similar to ones found a few years ago - namely, in Quality Improvement Collaboratives, teams where the members have low knowledge of the topic or improvement science, are the ones which come out best. It also demonstrates that good leadership trumps the teaching of theory.

I've always thought that the more we push theory under the guise of "Improvement Science" at these short term interventions, the more we may confuse participants and in fact create a type of "performance anxiety" where they become afraid of doing what comes naturally, because it has been turned into what appears to them as a right-wrong application.

Implement Sci. 2012 Jan 9;7(1):1. [Epub ahead of print]
Factors associated with the impact of quality improvement collaboratives in mental healthcare: an exploratory study.
Versteeg MH, Laurant MG, Franx GC, Jacobs AJ, Wensing MJ.

ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND:
Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) bring together groups of healthcare professionals to work in a structured manner to improve the quality of healthcare delivery within particular domains. We explored which characteristics of the composition, participation, functioning and organization of these collaboratives related to changes in the healthcare for patients with anxiety disorders, dual diagnosis, or schizophrenia.

METHODS:
We studied three QICs involving 29 quality improvement (QI) teams representing a number of mental healthcare organizations in the Netherlands. The aims of the three QICs were the implementation of multidisciplinary practice guidelines in the domains of anxiety disorders, dual diagnosis, and schizophrenia, respectively. We used eight performance indicators to assess the impact of the QI teams on self-reported patient outcomes and a number of process of care outcomes for 1.346 patients. The QI team members completed a questionnaire on the characteristics of the composition, participation in a national program, functioning and organizational context for their teams. It was expected that an association would be found between these team characteristics and the quality of care for patients with anxiety disorders, dual diagnosis, and schizophrenia.

RESULTS:
No consistent patterns of association emerged. Theory-based factors did not perform better than practice-based factors. However, QI teams that received support from their management and both active and inspirational team leadership showed better results. Rather surprisingly, a lower average level of education among the team members was associated with better results although less consistently than the management and leadership characteristics. Team views with regard to the QI goals of the team and attitudes towards multidisciplinary practice guidelines did not correlate with team success.

CONCLUSIONS:
No general conclusions about the impact of the characteristics of QI teams on the quality of healthcare can be drawn, but support of the management and active, inspirational team leadership appear to be important. Not only patient outcomes but also the performance indicators of monitoring and screening/assessment showed improvement in many but not all of the QI teams with such characteristics. More studies are needed to identify factors associated with the impact of multidisciplinary practice guidelines in mental healthcare.

Overcoming resistance to change

Resistance to change is on that "Top Five" list of topcis I get aksed about.

I think the video below is a great answer to the question on how to overcome resistance to change:

Where are the negative studies?

I've written about his before, but I am still concerned about the lack of will to share what doesn't work in quality improvement initiatives. I worry that improvement leaders are so concerned about telling their sponsors that the work is doing very well, that they can't face the less than successful projects. We all know we learn from mistakes - in fact one of the basic tents of quality improvement is the importance of testing and learning (from the good and the bad).

I keep threatening to start the Journal for Quality and Safety Initiative Learning/Mistakes/Failures/Messes.  When I figure the title I'll get it going.  Any suggestions?

Fully-funded leadership programme open for application - Health Foundation, UK

 Fully-funded leadership programme open for application

The Health Foundation is seeking people who are passionate about transforming healthcare to join GenerationQ, its fully-funded, masters-level programme creating leaders for improvement.

GenerationQ is open to senior leaders in healthcare or the voluntary sector who are in a position to influence improvements to care quality.

Fellows will learn about the evidence base underpinning leadership for quality improvement and how to apply improvement science, leadership and change theories in practice.

Fellows will also deliver a substantial improvement project in their place of work, benefiting their organisation through addressing real-time quality challenges, based on organisational priorities.

This part-time programme takes between 18 months and two years to complete, and leads to a postgraduate certificate, diploma or Masters in Leadership (Quality Improvement), accredited by Ashridge.

The Health Foundation is an independent charity working to continuously improve the quality of healthcare in the UK.

If you are interested in applying, please visit the Health Foundation’s website to find out more and download the application form: www.health.org.uk/generationq Please pass on this information to anyone who may be interested.

The deadline for submitting an application form is 9am on Monday 18 July 2011.

Publishing negative studies is good for learning

Humans learn by making mistakes. When the mistakes of others are hidden then we all have to go over the same ground to discover the errors - a waste of time, in many cases. The issue of publishing negative studies is a bit one.  When I was researching my book "Why good practice doesn't spread" I could find no-one who was prepared to share, publicly, their experience of a large scale change project that did not achieve what it set out to do. They would talk in private and anonymously - but not openly.

One of my ambitions is to start the online Journal of Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Program Failures. I would love to be able to read about projects that went pear-shaped. I think I would learn more from them than from the ones which advertise greatness.

If you have ideas on what should be included in this Journal then please leave a comment on this blogpost or email me directly.

In the meantime if you want to read a few articiples and papers about the issue check out:
Increased calls for publishing negative clinical trial data
Publish or perish culture distorting research results
The importance of publishing negative results

Is there evidence for your quality improvement intervention?

Is there evidence for the interventions we're using to improve quality of services and to reduce costs? I suspect in many cases there isn't. Sometimes just doing something is better than nothing, though I do find it surprising that some organisations are strong at pushing a particular intervention, even though there are few (unpaid for) independent evaluations. And on the other hand, there are some well evidenced interventions that organisations don't want to use because they are appear old fashioned. Hmmm - we demand of healthcare professionals that they use the best evidenced methods - should we be demanding that of ourselves?

There's an excellent visualisation for the scientific evidence of dietary supplements. When I looked at this I wondered whether we could do something similar for the quality improvement interventions that are being used around the world?

In the meantime, using the SQUIRE Guidelines to write up your projects will go a long way to building up an evidence base of what works - and what doesn't.