Search results

This paper describes a quality improvement project to improve oversight of quality at national board level using statistical process control (SPC) methods, complimented by a qualitative experience of patients and frontline staff. It demonstrates the application of the “Picture-Understanding-Action” approach and shares the lessons learnt.

Using co-design and applying the “Picture-Understanding-Action” approach, the project team supported the directors of the Irish health system to identify and test a qualitative and quantitative picture of the quality of care across the health system. A “Quality Profile” consisting of quantitative indicators, analysed using SPC methods was used to provide an overview of the “critical few” indicators across health and social care. Patient and front-line staff experiences added depth and context to the data. These methods were tested and evolved over the course of six meetings, leading to quality of care being prioritised and interrogated at board level.

This project resulted in the integration of quality as a substantive and prioritised agenda item. Using best practice SPC methods with associated training produced better understanding of performance of the system. In addition, bringing patient and staff experiences of quality to the forefront “people-ised” the data.

The application of the “Picture-Understanding-Action” approach facilitated the development of a co-designed quality agenda item. This is a novel process that shifted the focus from “providing” information to co-designing fit-for-purpose information at board level.

The purpose of this study is to present a quality improvement approach titled “Picture-Understanding-Action” used in Ireland to enhance the role of healthcare boards in the oversight of healthcare quality and its improvement.

The novel and practical “Picture-Understanding-Action” approach was implemented using the Model for Improvement to iteratively introduce changes across three quality improvement projects. This approach outlines the concepts and activities used at each step to support planning and implementation of processes that allow a board to effectively achieve its role in overseeing and improving quality. This approach matured over three quality improvement projects.

The “Picture” included quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative “Picture” consisted of a quality dashboard/profile of board selected outcome indicators representative of the health system using statistical process control (SPC) charts to focus discussion on real signals of change. The qualitative picture was based on the experience of people who use and work in health services which “people-ised” the numbers. Probing this “Picture” with collective grounding, curiosity and expert training/facilitation developed a shared “Understanding”. This led to “Action(s)” from board members to improve the “Picture” and “Understanding” (feedback action), to ask better questions and make better decisions and recommendations to the executive (feed-forward action). The Model for Improvement, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles and a co-design approach in design and implementation were key to success.

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first time a board has undertaken a quality improvement (QI) project to enhance its own processes. It addresses a gap in research by outlining actions that boards can take to improve their oversight of quality of care.

While clinical governance is assumed to be part of organisational structures and policies, implementation of clinical governance in practice (the praxis) can be markedly different. This paper draws on insights from hospital clinicians, managers and governors on how they interpret the term “clinical governance”. The influence of best-practice and roles and responsibilities on their interpretations is considered.

The research is based on 40 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with hospital clinicians, managers and governors from two large academic hospitals in Ireland. The analytical lens for the research is practice theory. Interview transcripts are analysed for practitioners' spoken keywords/terms to explore how practitioners interpret the term “clinical governance”. The practice of clinical governance is mapped to front line, management and governance roles and responsibilities.

The research finds that interpretation of clinical governance in praxis is quite different from best-practice definitions. Practitioner roles and responsibilities held influence practitioners' interpretation.

The research examines interpretations of clinical governance in praxis by clinicians, managers and governors and highlights the adverse consequence of the absence of clear mapping of roles and responsibilities to clinical, management and governance practice.

The paper examines interviewee insights into accountability for clinical governance in high-consequence, life-and-death hospital settings. The analysis draws on the distinction between formal “imposed accountability” and front-line “felt accountability”. From these insights, the paper introduces an emergent concept, “grounded accountability”.

Interviews are conducted with 41 clinicians, managers and governors in two large academic hospitals. The authors ask interviewees to recall a critical clinical incident as a focus for elucidating their experiences of and observation on the practice of accountability.

Accountability emerges from the front-line, on-the-ground. Together, clinicians, managers and governors co-construct accountability. Less attention is paid to cost, blame, legal processes or personal reputation. Money and other accountability assumptions in business do not always apply in a hospital setting.

The authors propose the concept of co-constructed “grounded accountability” comprising interrelationships between the concept’s three constituent themes of front-line staff’s felt accountability, along with grounded engagement by managers/governors, supported by a culture of openness.