Joanne Goldman

Introduction Preventable hospital patient harm events disproportionally affect certain patient populations. For some, harm extends beyond physical injury to include cultural, emotional or spiritual impacts. While these disparities are linked to socio-demographics (eg, race, education), they are driven by structural factors (eg, procedures and policies). Patient safety monitoring systems (eg, incident reporting, patient concerns) were not originally designed to identify equity-related harms and may inadvertently obscure or reinforce the injustices they should address. This study will examine how equity is currently considered within hospital incident reporting and patient concerns systems across Canada and will identify opportunities to strengthen these systems’ responsiveness to inequities in patient safety. Methods and analysis This 3-year exploratory sequential mixed-method study began in September 2024. Phase one involves qualitative interviews with patient safety and equity leads, patients/families/caregivers and leaders of innovative initiatives to explore current practices, gaps and innovations in how equity-related factors are identified and addressed within incident reporting and patient concerns systems. Findings will inform Phase 2, a modified Delphi process with patient safety and equity experts and persons with lived experience of equity-related harm events to refine and reach consensus on key equity-promoting features, considerations and recommendations for these systems. In Phase 3, consensus items will be used to develop a national cross-sectional survey assessing the extent to which equity is integrated into hospital incident reporting and patient concerns systems in Canada. A patient advisory committee will inform data collection, interpretation of findings and dissemination. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval has been received for Phase 1, with subsequent approvals to be sought for later phases. Dissemination plans include peer-reviewed publications, presentations at international conferences and knowledge exchange activities to inform patient engagement, the design of incident reporting and patient concerns systems and policy development.

Background Hospital incident reporting and patient concerns systems are widely used to detect and respond to patient harm. Despite increasing recognition of the link between equity and safety, equity remains poorly integrated into the design and function of these systems. Consequently, these systems risk obscuring or reproducing inequities rather than revealing and attending to them. Objective To examine how issues of equity are currently considered in research about hospital incident reporting and patient concerns systems and identify opportunities to more systematically include equity in how patient safety is addressed. Methods A critical interpretive synthesis was conducted to develop a theoretical understanding of the topic through inductive analysis and interpretation. The databases CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO were searched from database inception to 6 February 2024. Select social science, patient safety and health services literature supported the interpretive process. Results After screening 6508 abstracts and conducting hand searches, we included 30 articles in our review. Our analysis identified four equity-related themes. The first theme describes how knowledge injustices in ‘what counts as a safety event or contributor’ shape what patient issues are recognised, recorded and addressed. The second theme examines how individual bias and systemic discrimination affect which safety events and concerns get reported. The third theme explores both opportunities and limitations of stratifying data to uncover equity-related patterns of harm. The fourth theme presents alternate frameworks, including restorative and human rights approaches, as ways to address inequities and humanise harm. Conclusion The findings provide direction for changes within incident reporting and patient concerns practices (eg, expanding definitions of harms; creating accessible and culturally safe patient concerns systems). They also affirm the opportunity to learn from, and build on, initiatives such as taking a restorative approach that moves beyond a customer service and risk management framing.

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (qualitative). The objectives are as follows: Primary objectives To identify, appraise, and synthesize qualitative research evidence on healthcare stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of interventions aimed at improving interprofessional collaboration. Secondary objectives To identify factors influencing the implementation of interprofessional collaboration interventions. To inform subgroup analyses for future updates of the Cochrane intervention review

Despite widespread attention to addressing healthcare quality problems, few academic medical centers provide an academic pathway for faculty engaged in such work. This qualitative case study examined physicians and department leaders’ perceptions and experiences of a novel “Clinician in Quality and Innovation” (CQI) academic pathway created in 2012. Interviews were conducted with 23 CQI faculty and 7 department leaders. Of the department’s 20 divisions, 15 included at least one CQI with a median of 5 per division. Findings demonstrated how the academic track aligned with, and legitimized, CQIs’ interests, and allowed for a wide range of “quality and innovation” activities (eg, improving healthcare processes, developing models of care, clinical informatics). Contextual factors such as synergies with hospital-based initiatives for healthcare improvement and changes to academic promotion criteria were instrumental in CQI’s performance of the academic role. Despite promotion successes, CQIs described some tensions between academic and clinical role expectations.

Objective: To examine the projects of professionalisation and institutionalisation forming health care professions’ engagement in quality improvement collaborative (QIC) implementation in Denmark, and to analyse the synergies and tensions between the two projects given the opportunities afforded by the QICs. Methods: This was a cross-sectional interview study with professionals involved in the implementation of two national QICs in Denmark involving 23 individual interviews and focus group discussions with 75 people representing different professional groups. We conducted a reflexive thematic analysis of the data, drawing on institutional contributions to organisational studies of professions. Results: Study participants engaged widely in QIC implementation. This engagement was formed by a constructive interplay between the professions’ projects of professionalisation and institutionalisation, with only few tensions identified. The project of professionalisation relates to a self-oriented agenda of contributing professional expertise and promoting professional recognition and development, while the project of institutionalisation focuses on improving health care processes and outcomes and advancing quality improvement. Both projects were largely similar across professional groups. The interplay between the two projects was enabled by the bottom-up approach to implementation, participation of QI specialists, and a clear focus on developing and delivering high-quality patient care. Conclusions: Future strategies for QIC implementation should position QICs as a framework that promotes the integration of professions’ projects of professionalisation and institutionalisation to successfully engage professionals in the implementation process, and thereby optimise the effectiveness of QICs in health care.

Introduction Hospital safety monitoring systems are foundational to how adverse events are identified and addressed. They are well positioned to bring equity-related safety issues to the forefront for action. However, there is uncertainty about how they have been, and can be, used to achieve this goal. We will undertake a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) to examine how equity is integrated into hospital safety monitoring systems. Methods and analysis This review will follow CIS principles. Our initial compass question is: How is equity integrated into safety monitoring systems? We will begin with a structured search strategy of hospital safety monitoring systems in CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO for up to May 2023 to identify papers on safety monitoring systems generally and those linked to equity (eg, racism, social determinants of health). We will also review reference lists of selected papers, contact experts and draw on team expertise. For subsequent literature searching stages, we will use team expertise and expert contacts to purposively search the social science, humanities and health services research literature to support the development of a theoretical understanding of our topic. Following data extraction, we will use interpretive processes to develop themes and a critique of the literature. The above processes of question formulation, article search and selection, data extraction, and critique and synthesis will be iterative and interactive with the goal to develop a theoretical understanding of equity in hospital monitoring systems that will have practice-based implications. Ethics and dissemination This review does not require ethical approval because we are reviewing published literature. We aim to publish findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present at conferences.

Background The Measurement and Monitoring of Safety Framework (MMSF) aims to move beyond a narrow focus on measurement and past harmful events as the major focus for safety in healthcare organisations. There is limited evidence of MMSF implementation and impact. Objective We aimed to examine participants’ perspectives and experiences to increase understanding of the adaptive work of implementing the MMSF through a learning collaborative programme in diverse healthcare contexts across Canada. Methods The Collaborative consisted of 11 teams from seven provinces. We conducted a qualitative study involving interviews with 36 participants, observations of 5 sites and learning sessions, and collection of documents. Results Collaborative sessions and coaching allowed participants to explore reliability, sensitivity to operations, anticipation and preparedness, and integration and learning, in addition to past harm, and move beyond a project and measurement oriented safety approach. Participants noted the importance of time dedicated to engaging stakeholders in talk about MMSF concepts and their significance to their settings, prior to moving to implementing the Framework into practice. While participants generally started with a small number of ways of integrating the MMSF into practice such as rounds or huddles, many teams continued to experiment with incorporating the MMSF into a range of practices. Participants reported changes in thinking about safety, discussions and behaviours, which were perceived to impact healthcare processes. However, participants also reported challenges to sharing the Framework broadly and moving beyond its surface implementation, and difficulties with its sustained and widespread use given misalignments with existing quality and safety processes. Conclusion The MMSF requires a dramatic departure from traditional safety strategies that focus on discrete problems and emphasise measurement. MMSF implementation requires extensive discussion, coaching and experimentation. Future implementation should consider engaging local leaders and coaches and an organisation or system approach to enable broader reach and systemic change.

Background Healthcare leaders look to high-reliability organisations (HROs) for strategies to improve safety, despite questions about how to translate these strategies into practice. Weick and Sutcliffe describe five principles exhibited by HROs. Interventions aiming to foster these principles are common in healthcare; however, there have been few examinations of the perceptions of those who have planned or experienced these efforts. Objective This single-site qualitative study explores how healthcare professionals understand and enact the HRO principles in response to an HRO-inspired hospital-wide safety programme. Methods We interviewed 71 participants representing hospital executives, programme leadership, and staff and physicians from three clinical services. We observed and collected data from unit and hospital-wide quality and safety meetings and activities. We used thematic analysis to code and analyse the data. Results Participants reported enactment of the HRO principles ‘preoccupation with failure’, ‘reluctance to simplify interpretations’ and ‘sensitivity to operations’, and described the programme as adding legitimacy, training, and support. However, the programme was more often targeted at, and taken up by, nurses compared with other groups. Participants were less able to identify interventions that supported the HRO principles ‘commitment to resilience’ and ‘deference to expertise’ and reported limited examples of changes in practices related to these principles. Moreover, we identified inconsistent, and even conflicting, understanding of concepts related to the HRO principles, often related to social and professional norms and practices. Finally, an individualised rather than systemic approach hindered collective actions underlying high reliability. Conclusion Our findings demonstrate that the safety programme supported some HRO principles more than others, and was targeted at, and perceived differently across professional groups leading to inconsistent understanding and enactments of the principles across the organisation. Combining HRO-inspired interventions with more targeted attention to each of the HRO principles could produce greater, more consistent high-reliability practices.

Introduction Theory plays an important role in education programming and research. However, its use in quality improvement and patient safety education has yet to be fully characterized. The authors undertook a scoping review to examine the use of theory in quality improvement and patient safety education. Methods Eligible articles used theory to inform the design or study of a quality improvement or patient safety curriculum. The authors followed scoping review methodology and searched articles referenced in 20 systematic reviews of quality improvement and patient safety education, or articles citing one of these reviews, and hand searched eligible article references. Data analysis involved descriptive and interpretive summaries of theories used and the perspectives the theories offered. Results Eligibility criteria were met by 28 articles, and 102 articles made superficial mention of theory. Eligible articles varied in professional group, learning stage and journal type. Theories fell into two broad categories: learning theories (n = 20) and social science theories (n = 11). Theory was used in the design (n = 12) or study (n = 17) of quality improvement and patient safety education. The range of theories shows the opportunity afforded by using more than one type of theory. Discussion Theory can guide decisions regarding quality improvement and patient safety education practices or play a role in selecting a methodology or lens through which to study educational processes and outcomes.

Background: Evidence for the central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) bundle effectiveness remains mixed, possibly reflecting implementation challenges and persistent ambiguities in how CLABSIs are counted and bundle adherence measured. In the context of a tertiary pediatric hospital that had reduced CLABSI by 30% as part of an international safety program, we aimed to examine unit-based socio-cultural factors influencing bundle practices and measurement, and how they come to be recognized and attended to by safety leaders over time in an organization-wide bundle implementation effort. Methods: We used an interpretivist qualitative research approach, based on 74 interviews, approximately 50 h of observations, and documents. Data collection focused on hospital executives and safety leadership, and three clinical units: a medical specialty unit, an intensive care unit, and a surgical unit. We used thematic analysis and constant comparison methods for data analysis. Results: Participants had variable beliefs about the central-line bundle as a quality improvement priority based on their professional roles and experiences and unit setting, which influenced their responses. Nursing leaders were particularly concerned about CLABSI being one of an overwhelming number of QI targets for which they were responsible. Bundle implementation strategies were initially reliant on unit-based nurse education. Over time there was recognition of the need for centralized education and reinforcement tactics. However, these interventions achieved limited impact given the influence of competing unit workflow demands and professional roles, interactions, and routines, which were variably targeted in the safety program. The auditing process, initially a responsibility of units, was performed in different ways based on individuals’ approaches to the process. Given concerns about auditing reliability, a centralized approach was implemented, which continued to have its own variability. Conclusions: Our findings report on a contextualized, dynamic implementation approach that required movement between centralized and unit-based approaches and from a focus on standardization to some recognition of a role for customization. However, some factors related to bundle compliance and measurement remain unaddressed, including harder to change socio-cultural factors likely important to sustainability of the CLABSI reductions and fostering further improvements across a broader safety agenda.