Background
Methods
Research strategy
Data sources and analysis
Selection and presentation of outcome patterns
Key informants perspectives on factors influencing outcome patterns
Analysis of the key informants’ perspectives
Results and discussion
Summary of salient ABCD CQI project inputs | Potential contexts | Plausible mechanisms | Potential outcomes | Exemplar quotes |
---|---|---|---|---|
● Health center staff participate in annual predominantly paper-based audit processes, interpretation of reports and systems assessment and action planning that use data derived from clinical audit, as a starting point for change | Centralized management style; regional board committed and involved in CQI implementation (C1) | Collective or shared valuing of clinical data for improvement purposes (M1) | ● Temporary declines and instability as services get used to new systems. Major revision of clinical record keeping; centralized ‘cleaning up’ process to standardize reporting across health centers. | ‘Across our region we did a concerted effort for documentation for diabetes services…and so certainly the improvement [in the early years] would just have been about documentation, so having somewhere to write things…I think all was about documentation. But 2006 to 2007 I think there was a concerted effort. The chronic disease strategy really kicked in and that was when, at some point during that period, [name] had her lights on moment. [we understood] the focus of how important doing the right processes at the right time was’. |
● Marked changes (HC1 & 2 Figure 2E). | ||||
● Automatic generation of reports from clinical audit through a web-based information system. | Local ownership of CQI (devolved management style); competent staff in management roles; managers and clinicians with an interest in chronic disease and in clinical and population health data (C2) | Collective or shared valuing of clinical data for improvement purposes (M1) | ● Use of non-core strategies such as follow up of individuals receiving poor care identified in clinical audit, used to highlight clinical relevance of data (HC 7 & 8 Figure 2A). | ‘Doctor [name] was always really, really interested in the data…where he saw really big increases in ACRs and that, he would want to know who were the people that were being audited in terms of following those up. So he was very good with that. And then of course [name] is their quality improvement person… they were standardising their filing system right across that region, which she led, and so [the data] were quite easily accessible’ |
● Ability for health centers to adjust reporting (format, indicators etc.) to suit local reporting requirements and accountabilities | ||||
● Engagement of champions and change agents at different levels of the health system to promote uptake of the project | Poor management, uncertainty and confusion over role definitions. (C3) | Collective or shared valuing of clinical data for improvement purposes (M1) | ● Limited changes in data systems; frustration and confusion about ongoing involvement in CQI. | ‘A lot of health workers. Been there for a long time, and I asked them what, sort of asked what their training was. Why aren’t they doing like blood pressures and blood sugars…They said they were not allowed. They’ve been told by management they’re not allowed.…that was part of their training though that, you know, I’m a health worker and that’s part of my training. But yeah, a lot of them have been there for 15 years. They just didn’t have a focus. We actually wondered what their existence was about’. |
● Ongoing refinement of the project to maximize synergies with major policy initiatives | ||||
● Processes and tools that brought together different health care professionals and managers to share ideas for service performance and improvement activities | Regional or organizational infrastructure supportive of networking for CQI and centralization of some tasks. Positive prior history of collaboration (C4) | Collective change efficacy (M2) | ● Appropriate reflection on salient comparison group; formation of networked communities | ‘Have good communication systems… share ideas between the different health centers. And a strong focus on education through regional support teams… use video conferencing as well as regular visits.. and its very vibrant, like they are always out there’. |
● Annual planning meetings, meetings, teleconferences and sharing of experiences between health centers | Organizational culture unsupportive of collaboration. Health centers see themselves as being in competition (C5) | Collective change efficacy (M2) | ● Inappropriate reflection on performance and early fatigue | ‘Cause, yeah, when I first started they were really eager, you know, like doctors were all eager to see how, cause there’s three clinics in [name of city]. They were all competing with each other, who’s going to be the best, and who’s going to give the best service, so but it’s just worn off’. |
● Provision of benchmarking data, allowing health centers to reflect on their performance in relation to that of others | ||||
● Application of CQI to a wide range of health outcomes and service populations (diabetes, preventive health, maternal health, child health), and a range of care processes | Pre-existing favorable context of patient and community oriented care, supported by stable effective outreach workers and good regional co-ordination for CQI (C6) | Organizational change to encompass a population health orientation (M3) | ● Recognition of value and roles of Aboriginal Health Workers in outreach and linking this to service delivery. | ‘With [NAME] they had the self management program there, and they get a lot of stuff outside the health center.. it was about promoting good health in the community, working with the store [for supply of healthy food in this remote community], and those places. A lot of health promotion activities were going on with those health workers there. .. Population lists were being improved and a better understanding [in the context of transient populations and population movement]’. |
● Developing greater consistency in provision of general practitioner services. | ||||
● Processes that brought different service delivery professionals together to reflect on health center performance (for example, outreach workers and clinic-based staff) | ||||
● Regionally based co-ordinator positions supported population health planning and multidisciplinary team approaches to chronic disease care | Staff who can identify with patients and have the skills to take broad ranging action, including clinical action and action related to data system development and use, coupled by regional support and co-ordination (C7) | Organizational change to encompass a population health orientation (M3) | ● Priority-driven resource allocation decisions. | ‘P1: Well [NAME] is passionate about making sure all the diabetics [are well cared for] …P2: He was also a diabetic wasn’t he? P1: Yeah. He had a personal drive and he was cardiac nurse, so any cardiac stuff that was related to diabetes, you know, he could tell people when they were being sent to Adelaide and you know, he did all that sort of advice as well…And what he did though was set up the big clean up of the data system. And started extracting reports and cleaning up the population base’. |
Context | Proposed mechanisms and reasoning for recommended strategies |
---|---|
Mechanism 1: Collective or shared valuing of clinical data for improvement purposes: if health centers expect their clinical audit data to be fit for the purpose of QI, then they will be more motivated to use these data for service improvement as envisaged by the CQI model. | |
Centralized management style; regional board committed and involved in CQI implementation (C1) | ● If centralized management of CQI institutes revision of clinical record keeping systems, participating health centers will develop collective or shared valuing of clinical data for improvement purposes, and will in fact use the data for performance improvement, resulting in improvements in care delivery. |
● If this works because of the expectations of the potential for data to support CQI (for example, through social mechanisms such as the ‘self fulfilling prophecy’), then | |
wide-scale CQI projects could encourage health centers sharing this context to enter CQI processes with optimism, and use processes as a way to motivate for improvements in clinical record keeping even where good quality data on care processes are not consistently available at the outset | |
Local ownership of CQI; competent managers with interest in chronic disease and clinical and population health data (C2) | ● If clinical staff use data in non-core ways to illustrate the applicability of data and importance of record keeping, health centers participating in these initiatives will develop collective or shared valuing of clinical data for improvement purposes, and will in fact use the data for performance improvement, resulting in improvements in care delivery. |
● If this works because of the adaptive potential of the project then | |
wide-scale CQI projects could develop examples of different presentation formats of audit data, and of CQI processes to illustrate adaptive potential more strongly, demonstrating their capacity to resonate with different organizational cultures and vision | |
Poor management, uncertainty and confusion over role definitions (C3) | ● If poor overall management and role confusion detracts from health center staff perceptions of the value of their data, health centers participating in wide scale CQI projects are less likely to develop shared valuing of clinical data for improvement, and will be less likely to use the data for performance improvement, constraining the potential for improvements in care delivery, and discouragement (negative feedback loop). |
● If this context is a key constraint on the effectiveness of CQI, then | |
interventions targeting unfavorable organizational contexts should be developed, prior to, or in parallel with, CQI implementation | |
Mechanism 2: Collective efficacy - If health center staff have a strong sense of shared belief of achieving improvement through the CQI project, then they will be more motivated to attempt changes to improve service delivery as envisaged by CQI, devote considerable effort to it, and persist in the face of difficulties. | |
Infrastructure supportive of CQI networking; positive prior history of collaboration (C4) | ● If regional/organizational infrastructure is supportive of networking for CQI, and networks are formed, health centers will attempt changes, put effort into changes and show persistence, resulting in improvements in care delivery. |
● If this works because of informal social control enacted under conditions of social trust, then | |
wide-scale CQI projects could encourage greater density of networks between health centers in this context, transparent sharing of information and experiences related to CQI | |
Organizational culture unsupportive of collaboration (C5) | ● If organizational culture is unsupportive of collaboration, inappropriate competitiveness and early fatigue and disillusionment will result. If this ‘works’ because of lack of co-operation with social control, related to lack of social trust, then |
wide scale CQI projects could seek to identify health centers sharing this context, and aim to build sufficient trust for collaborative networking to take place | |
Mechanism 3: Organizational changes towards a population health orientation - If health centers share an understanding of their role as supporting health of their service and community populations, not just those presenting for care, then they will engage in activities outside of the health center, build trust with community members, instituting changes for service improvement that are consistent with community needs, and therefore more likely to be acceptable to the community and lead to greater demand for services, and increased delivery of guideline scheduled services – as long as the guidelines and indicators measured are consistent with community needs. | |
Pre-existing favorable context of patient and community oriented care, supported by stable effective outreach workers and good regional co-ordination for CQI (C6) | ● If organizational culture has a strong external focus, participation in CQI may enable clearer understanding of unmet need/under delivery, helping health centers to galvanize to improve care, and will use these data for performance improvement. |
● If this works because of the role of CQI in providing information on population health needs, then | |
wide-scale CQI projects could be designed as broad integrated models as these will be more likely to trigger change towards a population health orientation than narrow CQI models that focus on a more limited range of clinical targets | |
Staff who can identify with patients and have the skills to take broad ranging action (C7) | ● If key individuals are motivated and empowered to take broad ranging action, and have the support to do so, then they will actively participate in wide-scale CQI projects, and use these as a tool to initiate improved care delivery |
● If this works because of the role of individual level enthusiasm in promoting change, then | |
wide-scale CQI projects could seek to proactively build the skills and development of enthusiastic clinical leaders in promoting overall performance improvement across the scope of clinical care |