Introduction
Method
Quality Themes Inside-Out | Quality Themes Outside-In |
---|---|
The department of hospital-based physiotherapy: | The quality of hospital-based physiotherapy is characterised by: |
has a culture of continuous learning, improvement and open dialogue | a human approach |
ensures the promotion of staff expertise that is consistent with the demand for care | context-specific and up-to-date applicable knowledge and expertise |
uses a planning & control cycle to work on achieving its goals in the short, medium and long term, with a policy plan that fits within the frameworks of organisational policy | providing the right care in the right place at the right time |
forms an integral part of the overall patient and hospital process | a proactive departmental policy in which the added value for the hospital is transparent |
implements a patient-oriented policy | professional development and innovation based on a vision on science and developments in care |
systematically ensures that the physiotherapeutic interventions undertaken by its employees are of the highest possible quality | easy access and awareness of one’s own and others’ position within the interdisciplinary cooperation |
collects feedback on its performance from stakeholders and staff and takes action that is based on this feedback | ensuring a continuum of care with the inclusion of pre-and post-clinical care of patients |
Brainwriting
Decision matrix
Analysis
Reflexivity
Results
Member | Gender | Experience Years | Type of Hospital | Relationship to hospital-based physiotherapy |
---|---|---|---|---|
Medical Specialist (Cardiology) | Male | 7 | General Teaching | Referrer to hospital-based physiotherapy |
Hospital Manager (Orthopaedics) | Male | 24 | General Teaching | Former hospital-based physiotherapist managing major referring specialisms |
Hospital-based Physiotherapist | Male | 14 | University | Active hospital-based physiotherapist |
Hospital-based Physiotherapy Department Manager | Male | 27 | University | Active manager of a major academic department of hospital-based physiotherapy |
Patient representative | Male | 19 | University | Experienced as a patient of hospital-based physiotherapy, followed by activities and experience in patient representative bodies. |
Representative of professional Association | Female | 11 | N/A | Policy officer of the Dutch Association of Physiotherapy in Hospitals |
Method | Objective | Construction | Advantages | Disadvantages |
---|---|---|---|---|
Continuing Education | To keep professionals up to date on the latest advances in their field and to afford an opportunity to explore other areas in this field | There are many types of continuing education for professionals, individually or in groups, like: post-secondary degree programs, professional certifications, independent studies, professional events, on-the-job training, research and online courses | Useful Acceptable | Difficult to evaluate the impact on QI Available budget can be a bottleneck |
Feedback PREMs and PROMs | To foster improvement and adopt best practices based on patient related outcomes and experiences, and in addition clinical outcomes, to further improve these outcomes | Reports coming directly from patients about how they feel or function in relation to a health condition and its therapy without interpretation by healthcare professionals or anyone else | Excellent in providing easily accessible data from a (national) database | Confrontation of the individual professional Effort and cost to setup a (national) database |
Quality Portfolio | To establish a readable classification at a certain level indicating the quality of the professional on the basis of experience and education | Implementation of a database that shows the relevant experience and education received by each professional | Easy to measure Uncovers gaps in knowledge and skills Fast to apply | Knowledge and skills needs to be in good order for proper functioning |
Peer Observation and Feedback | To observe each other’s practice and learning from one another, to support the sharing of best practice and build awareness about the impact of your own professional conduct | After a predetermined time period and feedback list the observer may share his/her observations, in the form of a written report accompanied by verbal feedback | Promotion of a culture of feedback and dialogue Little costs | Hard to measure (more qualitative than quantitative data) Might be perceived as threatening |
360 Degree Feedback | To offer employees more varied multidisciplinary input. To give employees timely recognition and a better understanding how they can improve | A process where the employees receive feedback from peers working closely with them - co-workers, managers, direct reports. The feedback is usually anonymous and completely confidential | Multidisciplinary feedback | Unwillingness to critically appraise multidisciplinary colleagues leading to limited reliability |
Management Information System | To provide information for decision making on planning, initiating, organizing, and controlling and to provide a synergistic organization in the process. | The Management Information System design should give, after determining the input to be fed to the system, reports in line with the organization structure and needed outcomes. In this case specifically on critical indicators for hospital-based physiotherapy. | Data already available in other systems | Hard to establish which critical process indicators should be implemented |
Intervision with intercollegiate Evaluation | To share problems, questions, concerns with colleagues in order to develop the skills and insights of professionals who try to look for solutions. | A structured method of group consultation. During a meeting one participant is in the centre with a practical situation from his or her work. The participant describes clearly for what aspects he or she wants input (help) from the others | Accepted method Easy to introduce in work routines | Hard to measure (more qualitative than quantitative data) Might be perceived as threatening |
Scores on a scale of 1 to 5: 1 = very inappropriate 2 = inappropriate 3 = sufficiently appropriate 4 = appropriate 5 = very appropriate | Criterion 1: Measurable (an essential and distinguishing attribute: discriminatory power) | Criterion 2: Acceptable (adequate to satisfy a need, requirement or standard: safety, acceptance) | Criterion 3: Impact (to have a strong effect on quality: focused and efficient) | Criterion 4: Accessible (easy to understand and use: cost, effort) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Method 1: Continuing Education Median Score: 4,0 | Score: 3 ± Number of courses is measurable, but doubts about discriminatory power - Measurable to what extent someone has taken it, not what someone has learned from it | Score: 4 ⊕ This will be acceptable for everyone - If you have to make certain development according to departmental plan, possibly not acceptable | Score: 4 ± If it also concerns non-physiotherapeutic skills, such as PDCA ± Training is the 1st step, implementation/application the 2nd step - This does not give a good impression of the quality (attendance obligation versus result obligation) | Score: 4 ± Low effort, high cost ± Costs are manageable at team level - Dependent on departmental budget |
Method 2: Feedback PREMs and PROMs Median Score: 4,0 | Score: 5 ⊕ If PREMS and PROMS are collected per person or per department, this can be easily measurable | Score: 3 ± In team with a “just-culture” acceptable ± Does require guidance and explanation - This can produce confrontational data | Score: 5 ± This is very focused, gives a good picture. Can take a lot of effort to retrieve this data. ± Easy and targeted, condition is a good set of prems and proms | Score: 3 ± Does require some effort and decisiveness from a department - Set-up can entail a lot of effort/work and a lot of costs |
Method 3: Quality portfolio Median Score: 4,0 | Score: 5 ⊕ If knowledge and skills for quality portfolio are tested annually, this can be easily measured | Score: 4 ⊕ When knowledge and skills are in good order, this may not be a problem | Score: 4 ⊕ Experience shows that this works well and uncovers gaps in knowledge and skills ⊕ Easy and fast to apply | Score: 3 ⊕ Little effort, little cost |
Method 4: Peer Observation & Feedback Median Score: 4,0 | Score: 4 ⊕ Requires uniform application ± If this is done using rubrics, this can be easily measured - More qualitative by nature | Score: 3 ⊕ Can also promote a culture of feedback and dialogue ⊕ In team with a “just-culture” acceptable. Also, acceptable if you manage security well (e.g., anonymously) ± Requires explanation and experience - Can be threatening to have a look behind the scenes | Score: 5 ± Very direct and efficient way ⊕ Peer Feedback is often considered to be very valuable, especially when adding a feedback course ⊕ Easy to use and targeted | Score: 4 ± Little cost, some effort - Team leader must be the driving force, is a risk for success |
Method 5: 360 degree feedback Median Score 3,0 | Score: 3 - The degree to which someone is willing to ask for feedback has a great influence on the result - More qualitative by nature - Requires training, experience: colleagues have difficulties with this | Score: 3 ± In team with “just-culture” acceptable ± Dependent on free choice in this - Not everyone will find it convenient to collect feedback | Score: 4 ⊕ Is multidisciplinary feedback (only valuable alongside peer feedback) ± Provided it is performed well - Pleasing each other can distort | Score: 4 ± Little cost, some effort - Difficult to complete, difficult to ask whom to ask |
Method 6: Management Information System Median Score: 4,5 | Score: 5 ⊕ Pre-eminently measurable matters ⊕ Establish the Critical Process Indicators as a team and include them in the annual development discussion - What are those Critical Process Indicators? | Score: 4 ⊕ This data is already being collected ± It is a little unclear which Critical Process Indicators are involved; this is a determining factor for this criterion | Score: 3 ⊕ Agreements are recorded ± Difficult to estimate - Says little about quality | Score: 5 ⊕ Is already there, no cost, no effort ± Difficult to estimate |
Method 7: Intervision with intercollegiate Evaluation Median Score: 4,0 | Score: 3 ± Whether measurable depends on methodology/score form ± Provided it is carried out properly - More qualitative by nature | Score: 4 ⊕ Accepted working method ⊕ After some experience - This can be experienced as threatening | Score: 5 ⊕ Very direct and efficient way | Score: 4 ⊕ Easy to fit in ± Little cost, but effort |