A qualitative study of contextual factors’ impact on measures to reduce surgery cancellations

BMC Health Services Research

Oddbjørn Bukve¹  Einar Hovlid¹ 

[1] Sogn og Fjordane University College, Institute of Social Science, Postbox 133, Sogndal 6851, Norway

关键词: Quality improvement;    Theoretical framework;    Surgery cancellations;    Contextual factors;   

Others  :  1131167
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6963-14-215

 received in 2013-07-30, accepted in 2014-05-05,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Contextual factors influence quality improvement outcomes. Understanding this influence is important when adapting and implementing interventions and translating improvements into new settings. To date, there is limited knowledge about how contextual factors influence quality improvement processes. In this study, we explore how contextual factors affected measures to reduce surgery cancellations, which are a persistent problem in healthcare. We discuss the usefulness of the theoretical framework provided by the model for understanding success in quality (MUSIQ) for this kind of research.

Method

We performed a qualitative case study at Førde Hospital, Norway, where we had previously demonstrated a reduction in surgery cancellations. We interviewed 20 clinicians and performed content analysis to explore how contextual factors affected measures to reduce cancellations of planned surgeries.

Results

We identified three common themes concerning how contextual factors influenced the change process: 1) identifying a need to change, 2) facilitating system-wide improvement, and 3) leader involvement and support. Input from patients helped identify a need to change and contributed to the consensus that change was necessary. Reducing cancellations required improving the clinical system. This improvement process was based on a strategy that emphasized the involvement of frontline clinicians in detecting and improving system problems. Clinicians shared information about their work by participating in improvement teams to develop a more complete understanding of the clinical system and its interdependencies. This new understanding allowed clinicians to detect system problems and design adequate interventions. Middle managers’ participation in the improvement teams and in regular work processes was important for successfully implementing and adapting interventions.

Conclusion

Contextual factors interacted with one another and with the interventions to facilitate changes in the clinical system, reducing surgery cancellations. The MUSIQ framework is useful for exploring how contextual factors influence the improvement process and how they influence one another. Discussing data in relation to a theoretical framework can promote greater uniformity in reporting findings, facilitating knowledge-building across studies.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Hovlid and Bukve; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Øvretveit J: Understanding the conditions for improvement: research to discover which context influences affect improvement success. BMJ Qual Saf 2011, 20(Suppl 1):i18-i23.
• [2]Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, Sinopoli D, Chu H, Cosgrove S, Sexton B, Hyzy R, Welsh R, Roth G, Bander J, Kepros J, Goeschel C: An Intervention to Decrease Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med 2006, 355(26):2725-2732. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa061115. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa061115 webcite
• [3]Øvretveit JC, Shekelle PG, Dy SM, McDonald KM, Hempel S, Pronovost P, Rubenstein L, Taylor SL, Foy R, Wachter RM: How does context affect interventions to improve patient safety? An assessment of evidence from studies of five patient safety practices and proposals for research. BMJ Qual Saf 2011, 20(7):604-610.
• [4]Kaplan HC, Brady PW, Dritz MC, Hooper DK, Linam WM, Froehle CM, Margolis P: The Influence of Context on Quality Improvement Success in Health Care: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Milbank Q 2010, 88(4):500-560.
• [5]Øvretveit J: A Framework for Quality Improvement Translation: Understanding the Conditionality of Interventions. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2004, 30(Supplement 1):15-24.
• [6]Fixsen DL, Naoom SF, Blase KA, Friedman RM, Wallace F: Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute; 2005.
• [7]Berwick DM: The science of improvement. JAMA 2008, 299(10):1182-1184.
• [8]Stevens DP, Shojania KG: Tell me about the context, and more. BMJ Qual Saf 2011, 20(7):557-559.
• [9]Lee A, Kerridge RK, Chui PT, Chiu CH, Gin T: Perioperative Systems as a quality model of perioperative medicine and surgical care. Health Policy 2011, 102(2–3):214-222.
• [10]Schuster M, Neumann C, Neumann K, Braun J, Geldner G, Martin J, Spies C, Bauer M, Group ftCS: The effect of hospital size and surgical service on case cancellation in elective surgery: results from a prospective multicenter study. Anesth Analg 2011, 113(3):578-585.
• [11]Hovlid E, Bukve O, Haug K, Aslaksen A, von Plessen C: A new pathway for elective surgery to reduce cancellation rates. BMC Health Serv Res 2012, 12(1):154. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Hovlid E, Bukve O, Haug K, Aslaksen AB, von Plessen C: Sustainability of healthcare improvement: what can we learn from learning theory? BMC Health Serv Res 2012, 12(1):235. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Grol R, Bosch MC, Hulscher M, Eccles MP, Wensing M: Planning and studying improvement in patient care: the use of theoretical perspectives. Milbank Q 2007, 85(1):93-138.
• [14]Walshe K: Understanding what works - and why - in quality improvement: the need for theory-driven evaluation. Int J Qual Health Care 2007, 19(2):57-59.
• [15]Damschroder L, Aron D, Keith R, Kirsh S, Alexander J, Lowery J: Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009, 4(1):50. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Taylor SL, Dy S, Foy R, Hempel S, McDonald KM, Øvretveit J, Pronovost PJ, Rubenstein LV, Wachter RM, Shekelle PG: What context features might be important determinants of the effectiveness of patient safety practice interventions? BMJ Qual Saf 2011, 20(7):611-617.
• [17]Kaplan HC, Provost LP, Froehle CM, Margolis PA: The Model for Understanding Success in Quality (MUSIQ): building a theory of context in healthcare quality improvement. BMJ Qual Saf 2012, 21(1):13-20.
• [18]Alexander JA, Hearld LR: The science of quality improvement implementation: developing capacity to make a difference. Med Care 2011, (49 Suppl):S6-S20. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181e1709c
• [19]Kaplan HC, Froehle CM, Cassedy A, Provost LP, Margolis PA: An exploratory analysis of the model for understanding success in quality. Health Care Manage Rev 2013, 38(4):325-338. doi:10.1097/HMR.0b013e3182689772
• [20]George AL, Bennett A: Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press; 2005.
• [21]Yin RK: Case study research: design and methods. Los Angeles: Sage; 2009.
• [22]Hovlid E, von Plessen C, Haug K, Aslaksen A, Bukve O: Patient experiences with interventions to reduce surgery cancellations: a qualitative study. BMC Surg 2013, 13(1):30. BioMed Central Full Text
• [23]Ogrinc G, Mooney SE, Estrada C, Foster T, Goldmann D, Hall LW, Huizinga MM, Liu SK, Mills P, Neily J, Nelson W, Pronovost PJ, Provost L, Rubenstein LV, Speroff T, Splaine M, Thomson R, Tomolo AM, Watts B: The SQUIRE (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guidelines for quality improvement reporting: explanation and elaboration. Qual Saf Health Care 2008, 17(Suppl 1):13-32.
• [24]Mays N, Pope C: Qualitative Research: Rigour and qualitative research. Br Med J 1995, 311(6997):109-112.
• [25]Hsieh HF, Shannon SE: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005, 15(9):1277-1288.
• [26]Creswell JW: Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks California: Sage Publications; 2007.
• [27]Lincoln YS, Guba EG: Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage; 1985.
• [28]Mays N, Pope C: Assessing quality in qualitative research. Br Med J 2000, 320(7226):50-52.
• [29]Argo JL, Vick CC, Graham LA, Itani KMF, Bishop MJ, Hawn MT: Elective surgical case cancellation in the Veterans Health Administration system: identifying areas for improvement. Am J Surg 2009, 198(5):600-606.
• [30]Sanjay P, Dodds A, Miller E, Arumugam PJ, Woodward A: Cancelled elective operations: an observational study from a district general hospital. J Health Organ Manag 2007, 21(1):54-58.
• [31]Seim AR, Fagerhaug T, Ryen SM, Curran P, Saether OD, Myhre HO, Sandberg WS: Causes of cancellations on the day of surgery at two major university hospitals. Surg Innov 2009, 16(2):173-180.
• [32]Weiner BJ, Amick H, Lee SY: Conceptualization and measurement of organizational readiness for change: a review of the literature in health services research and other fields. Med Care Res Rev 2008, 65(4):379-436.
• [33]Kotter JP: Leading Change. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press; 1996.
• [34]Holt DT, Helfrich CD, Hall CG, Weiner BJ: Are you ready? How health professionals can comprehensively conceptualize readiness for change. J Gen Intern Med 2010, 25(Suppl 1):50-55.
• [35]Holt DT, Vardaman JM: Toward a Comprehensive Understanding of Readiness for Change: The Case for an Expanded Conceptualization. J Chang Manag 2013, 13(1):9-18.
• [36]Brennan S, Bosch M, Buchan H, Green S: Measuring organizational and individual factors thought to influence the success of quality improvement in primary care: a systematic review of instruments. Implement Sci 2012, 7(1):121. BioMed Central Full Text
• [37]Pandit JJ, Pandit M, Reynard JM: Understanding waiting lists as the matching of surgical capacity to demand: are we wasting enough surgical time? Anaesthesia 2010, 65(6):625-640.
• [38]Pandit JJ, Westbury S, Pandit M: The concept of surgical operating list ‘efficiency’: a formula to describe the term. Anaesthesia 2007, 62(9):895-903.
• [39]Westbury S, Pandit M, Pandit JJ: Matching surgical operating capacity to demand using estimates of operating times. J Health Organ Manag 2009, 23(5):554-567.
• [40]Perroca MG, Jerico Mde C, Facundin SD: Surgery cancelling at a teaching hospital: implications for cost management. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem 2007, 15(5):1018-1024.
• [41]Ferschl MB, Tung A, Sweitzer B, Huo DZ, Glick DB: Preoperative clinic visits reduce operating room cancellations and delays. Anesthesiology 2005, 103(4):855-859.
• [42]Plsek P: Complexity and the Adoptation of Innovation in Health Care. Accelerating Quality Improvement in Health Care Strategies go Speed th Diffusion of Evidence-Based Innovations Washington DC 2003, 2003.
• [43]Plsek PE, Greenhalgh T: Complexity science - The challenge of complexity in health care. Br Med J 2001, 323(7313):625-628.
• [44]van Klei WA, Moons KG, Rutten CL, Schuurhuis A, Knape JT, Kalkman CJ, Grobbee DE: The effect of outpatient preoperative evaluation of hospital inpatients on cancellation of surgery and length of hospital stay. Anesth Analg 2002, 94(3):644-649.
• [45]Rai MR, Pandit JJ: Day of surgery cancellations after nurse-led pre-assessment in an elective surgical centre: the first 2 years. Anaesthesia 2003, 58(7):692-699.
• [46]O’Regan D, Shah S, Mirsadraee S, Al-Ruzzeh S, Karthik S, Jarvis M: Implementation of a process-orientated multidisciplinary approach (POMA), a system of cost-effective healthcare delivery within a cardiac surgical unit. Qual Saf Health Care 2008, 17(6):459-463.
• [47]Cilliers P: Complexity And Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems. London: Routledge; 1998.
• [48]Miller JH, Page SE: Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction To Computational Models Of Social Life. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press; 2007.
• [49]Brandrud AS, Schreiner A, Hjortdahl P, Helljesen GS, Nyen B, Nelson EC: Three success factors for continual improvement in healthcare: an analysis of the reports of improvement team members. BMJ Qual Saf 2011, 20(3):251-259.
• [50]Thor J, Wittlov K, Herrlin B, Brommels M, Svensson O, Skar J, Ovretveit J: Learning helpers: how they facilitated improvement and improved facilitation–lessons from a hospital-wide quality improvement initiative. Qual Manag Health Care 2004, 13(1):60-74.
• [51]Øvretveit J: Quality Health Services. Uxbridge, Middlesex: Brunel; 1989:116 s.
• [52]Dixon-Woods M, McNicol S, Martin G: Ten challenges in improving quality in healthcare: lessons from the Health Foundation’s programme evaluations and relevant literature. BMJ Qual Saf 2012, 21(10):876-884. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000760
• [53]Øvretveit J: The leaders role in Quality and safety improvement. Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting; 2005. http://194.103.189.144/upload/Webbplatser/Utvecklingscentrum/dokument/ledarens_roll_engelsk.pdf webcite (Accessed February 16th 2012)
• [54]Bukve O, Hovlid E: Entreprenørskap eller institusjonaliseringsprosessar? Om mekanismar i organisasjonsendring. Nordiske organisasjonsstudier 2014, 16(1):5-29.
• [55]Donaldson M, Mohr J: Improvement And Innovation In Health Care Microsystems. A Technical Report For The Institute Of Medicine Committee On The Quality Of Health Care In America. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: Princeton; 2000.