Asset-Based Quality Improvement Report & Tip Sheet

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 10 of 11

Volume 48, No. 11, November 2022 607 rics, they will annually review outcomes with the institu- tion's quality team to determine if relevant tracked metrics were measurably and sustainably improved. In addition to clinical quality benefits, we also sought to determine if the ABQI tool fostered frontline HCP engage- ment. Half of our clinical excellence stories were submitted by frontline HCPs using the ABQI tool. This is a promis- ing outcome and suggests that ABQI may provide a viable pathway to increase frontline HCP engagement. However, as mentioned previously, one of our key lessons was that we needed to keep this tool at the top of HCPs' minds as a quality improvement resource, otherwise referrals dwin- dled. Previous studies suggest that frontline HCPs disen- gage from quality improvement efforts when they do not re- ceive regular feedback from the investigating team. 22 There- fore, with continued use and sustained organizational com- munication team partnership, we are hopeful that ABQI will become permanently incorporated into our organiza- tion's culture. We have also begun including the ABQI tool in new employee orientation sessions so that all incoming HCPs immediately associate the asset-based mindset with our organization. The long-term impact of our ABQI tool on frontline HCP engagement will be measured through our institution's annual employee engagement survey. Ag- gregated frontline HCP data for the following three ques- tions will be collated for yearly AIT review: (1) "I know my contributions are valued at Banner Health"; (2) "How of- ten are providers in this office open to staff ideas about how to improve office processes?"; and (3) "Staff are encouraged to express alternative viewpoints in this office." For other institutions planning to launch the ABQI tool, we suggest adapting the institution's existing AER software. In our experience, the software vendor readily programmed Converge Platform to track stories of excellence, as this workflow was similar to their current adverse event tracking functions. Adding the ABQI tool's front-end and back-end components' questions also proved uncomplicated for the vendor. Therefore, other institutions may similarly refor- mat our ABQI tool questionnaire into a configuration that is native to their existing software. Due to our institutional contract with the vendor, there were no software startup costs nor additional operating expenses for our ABQI tool, but other institutions should consider such costs before implementation. Staffing costs should also be considered for institutions that compensate team members for quality improvement–related committee work. In the future, we plan to expand the ABQI tool into our organization's acute care facilities, urgent care centers, and other health care delivery entities. Furthermore, instead of relying solely on stories reported by frontline staff, the AIT is planning to explore clinical quality metrics (for exam- ple, hemoglobin A1C control, mammography screening) and patient experience feedback surveys to identify high- performing HCPs. The AIT will then work with these high- performing HCPs to proliferate the root causes of their suc- cess. With expanded ABQI tool utilization, future studies may include cost-effective analyses of our ABQI tool, quan- titative and qualitative feedback from frontline HCPs and downstream AIT communication recipients, and detailed clinical and organizational culture outcomes analyses. By sharing this ABQI tool, we are confident that other insti- tutions can adopt this asset-based mentality and transform quality improvement efforts throughout health care. Ul- timately, if these ABQI tools prove universally successful, regulatory agencies and insurers may eventually openly rec- ognize their value, and health care organizations may then place just as much emphasis on these asset-based initiatives as they currently do with deficit-based quality assurance. Conflicts of Interest. All authors report no conflicts of interest. Vilert A. Loving, MD, MMM , is Chair, Banner Medical Group, Ambu- latory Peer Review Committee, and Chief of Breast Imaging, Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, Gilbert, Arizona Connell Nolan, MS , is Senior Director of Organizational Development and Transformation, Department of Organizational Change Management, Banner Health Marjorie Bessel, MD , is Executive Vice President, Chief Clinical Officer, Banner Health. Please address correspondence to Vilert A. Loving, . REFERENCES 1. Edwards MT . In pursuit of quality and safety: an 8-year study of clinical peer review best practices in US hospitals. Int J Qual Health Care. 2018 Oct 1;30:602–607 . 2. The Joint Commission. Home page. Accessed Aug 23, 2022. . 3. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Quality Improvement Organizations. Accessed Aug 23, 2022. Initiatives- Patient- Assessment-Instruments/QualityImprovementOrgs . 4. Landrigan CP , et al. Temporal trends in rates of patient harm resulting from medical care. N Engl J Med. 2010 Nov 25;363:2124–2134 . 5. Paterick Z , Paterick TE . Peer review—legal and ethical issues faced by medical staff: the mandate for physician leader- ship. Hosp Pract Res. 2019;4:76–79 . 6. Lossius MN , et al. Transforming the culture of peer review: implementation across three departments in an academic health center. J Patient Saf. 2020 Dec 1;17:e1873–e1878 . 7. Archer S , et al. Development of a theoretical framework of factors affecting patient safety incident reporting: a theoretical review of the literature. BMJ Open. 2017 Dec 27;7:e017155 . 8. Edwards MT . Engaging physicians in patient safety through self-reporting of adverse events. Physician Exec. 2012;38(4):46–48 50, 52 . 9. Kaldjian LC , et al. Reporting medical errors to improve pa- tient safety: a survey of physicians in teaching hospitals. Arch Intern Med. 2008 Jan 14;168:40–46 . 10. Harrison R , Lawton R , Stewart K . Doctors' experiences of adverse events in secondary care: the professional and per- sonal impact. Clin Med (Lond). 2014;14:585–590 . 11. Wu AW , Steckelberg RC . Medical error, incident investiga- tion and the second victim: doing better but feeling worse? BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21:267–270 .

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

view archives of Infographics - Asset-Based Quality Improvement Report & Tip Sheet