Severn Foundation School: Top Tips to facilitate quality improvement in a postgraduate medical education setting

download

Clare van Hamel, Associate Postgraduate Dean and Director of Foundation School.

Severn Foundation School (FS) has embraced quality improvement (QI) as a highly effective means of achieving improvement in a wide variety of areas. Clare Van Hamel, Associate Postgraduate Dean and Director of Severn Foundation School believes QI empowers individuals, in a far more effective way than audit, helping staff to address the concerns which are directly affecting them. Here she describes ways that other Foundation Schools can follow their lead to enable foundation doctors to identify concerns and develop solutions using a multi-professional approach. This blog is brought to you by BMJ Quality. For more quality improvement resources go to quality.bmj.com

Severn FS has been fortunate in having quality Improvement leaders as part of the foundation faculty. They have really driven the enthusiasm to use QI tools supporting foundation doctors to identify concerns. Here are my top tips to facilitate quality improvement in a post-graduate medical education setting

1. Identify trainee leaders to enable near-peer championing of QI.

Severn FS have appointed Foundation School Quality Improvement Fellows. Following allocation via FPAS to the Severn Foundation School, all incoming F1s are invited to apply in open competition to be the QI Fellow for the school. The appointee is given financial support to attend an appropriate QI conference and also invited to attend relevant regional/foundation school meetings during their tenure. F1s do not have study leave but the Trusts are asked to be as supportive as possible to facilitate attendance at meetings.

The fellow is identified as a QI contact point for the other foundation trainees. The fellow is supported and mentored by the F2 QI fellow and QI faculty. There is a little more flexibility during the F2 year for the fellow to attend conferences during their study leave time supported financially by the Foundation school.

2. Identify trainer QI leads

Severn FS has been fortunate in having faculty who are committed QI champions within the region both at consultant and senior trainee level. The foundation school has recently set up a sub-group led by one of those champions to help to promote sharing of ideas and outcomes

3. Trusts need to engage and promote QI opportunities for their staff.

Many of our trusts really encourage their foundation doctors to participate in QI work as teams; with many achieving approximately 80% participation. The trusts have seen the specific benefits of the QI outcomes leading to change but also more subtly the benefits of multi-professional working leading to increased morale and respect between different professional groups. Many of the Trust’s executive teams are recognising the significance of the QI achievements and are keen to develop and endorse the work.

4. BMJ Quality subscriptions

These licences have been purchased by the Foundation school to help to facilitate sharing and publication of the QI work that has been completed by the trainees within the school.

5. Opportunities to share the QI outcomes

Severn Foundation School runs an annual regional presentation day providing opportunities for trainees to showcase their work. As a result of the positive feedback from the regional event..

6. Severn Foundation School organises the National Foundation Doctors Presentation Day

This annual event provides an opportunity for Foundation Doctors from any foundation school to present their work. The national day has attracted an increasing number of submissions >300/annum for the last two years. This year the event was supported by HEE, UKFPO, the GMC, HQIP, the BMA and others.

 7. Encourage and support your trainees to submit their work

A very large number of our trainees have presented their work at National and International meetings. We have been over-represented compared to the size of the school at meetings such as the NACT/UKFPO Sharing Best Practice Meetings. We try to provide financial support for trainees to attend to present their work when possible and encourage trusts to release trainees to present at national and international events.

 8. Highlight achievements

The trainee and faculty achievements are highlighted on our website. These are subdivided into presentations, publications and other projects. http://www.foundation.severndeanery.nhs.uk/about-us/trainee-and-faculty-achievements-2/

In summary quality improvement has enabled our trainees to deliver change within their working environments, in a wide variety of fields. The work has delivered a huge number of changes including better patient care escalation policies;  improved handover; safer prescribing of drugs and fluids; induction to F1 and F2 programmes; improved access to rotas and access to protocols. Much of the work has centred on patient safety but also on efficacy and efficiency. Many of the projects have produced considerable cost saving whilst also improving patient safety. What could most concisely be described as a WIN- WIN for all involved.


Copy shamelessly – yes: and make sure you copy carefully and flexibly

Rob Bethune is a surgical registrar in the Severn Deanery.  Follow him on twitter - @robbethune

Rob Bethune is a surgical registrar in the Severn Deanery. Follow him on twitter – @robbethune

One of the mantras of the quality movement is copy shamelessly from others.  This is valid and sensible; there is no point inventing the wheel over and over again (and more importantly not re-inventing the flat tyre).  However there are two important caveats to this; make sure you know what you are copying and be prepared to adapt the projects to fit your local circumstances. This blog is brought to you by BMJ Quality. For more quality improvement resources go to quality.bmj.com

‘In the South Seas there is a Cargo Cult of people.  During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now.  So they’ve arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas – he’s the controller – and they wait for airplanes to land.  They’re doing everything right.  The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before.  But it doesn’t work.  No airplanes land.  So I call these things Cargo Cult Science, because the follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land.’ – Richard Feyman[1].

The clear translation for us is that if you superficially copy a quality improvement programme you may well fail.  This argument is expanded in this excellent article by Mary Dixon-Woods that evaluates in detail why the Michigan central line infection programme worked.  As it turned out it was not just about the five point checklist (and in fact by the end there were over 100 different locally adapted checklists) but a complex social intervention [2].  The cocktail hour in the evenings of the collaborative meeting was seen as crucial in creating the culture to drive improvement.  Details are really important; they also had logos for all the participating ICUs printed onto the water bottles at the joint events; that is how you change culture.

As a surgical registrar I see this cargo cult style error daily.  In almost all theatres across the UK the WHO safer surgical checklist is used before, during and after each operation; well at least that is what the data from trusts will show you.  A study was published in the NEJM that showed the benefit of this checklist and the idea was that if all UK hospitals used this checklist then they would get the same reduction in mortality and morbidity[3].  However in the same way the islanders superficially copied the Americans with their wooden huts and bamboo ear defenders we have superficially copied this quality improvement intervention.  The NEJM study did not just use a checklist they had pre-operative briefings and crucially team training on how to use the checklist.  There is a whole science around checklists and a study in the British Journal of Surgery shows that we are simply not using it properly and therefore cannot expect to get the same benefits as the NEJM study showed[4].  We may laugh at the islanders but we are doing the same thing on mass in the NHS.

Just because a quality improvement intervention worked in one place does not automatically mean that it will work in your clinical area.  In fact it is likely that without some alterations to fit your local circumstances it won’t work as well.  In this paper (co-authored by @carsonstevens) this point is expanded on  – if you are not prepared to adapt work from elsewhere and be flexible you are much more likely to fail and this is one of the reasons why so many QI initiatives do not succeed[5].  Again we have not heeded this advice during the roll out of the WHO checklist.  It must be adapted for local situations.  Some of the questions are simply not relevant to UK hospitals and equally there are other questions that need to be included. Pilots do not use the same checklist for each plane they fly and so we should not be using the same checklist for day case eye surgery as for an anterior resection for rectal cancer.  If we become more flexible with the implementation we will get more staff on board and begin to effect the cultural change that was behind the original success of the safer surgical checklist.

So if you want to avoid being one of the islanders with bamboo headsets, before you start to implement the next amazing improvement initiative make absolutely sure that you know in detail what you are copying and be prepared to be flexible in the implementation.

 

1. Feynman RP, Robbins J. Cargo Cult Science: Some Remarks on Science, Pseudosciene, and Learning How to Not Fool Yourself. The Pleasure of Finding Things Out. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books, 1999:205-16.

2. Dixon-Woods M, Bosk CL, Aveling EL, Goeschel CA, Pronovost PJ. Explaining Michigan: developing an ex post theory of a quality improvement program. Milbank Q 2011;89(2):167-205 doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00625.x[published Online First: Epub Date]|.

3. Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med 2009;360(5):491-9 doi: NEJMsa0810119 [pii]

10.1056/NEJMsa0810119[published Online First: Epub Date]|.

4. Pickering SP, Robertson ER, Griffin D, et al. Compliance and use of the World Health Organization checklist in UK operating theatres. Br J Surg 2013;100(12):1664-70 doi: 10.1002/bjs.9305[published Online First: Epub Date]|.

5. Parry GJ, Carson-Stevens A, Luff DF, McPherson ME, Goldmann DA. Recommendations for evaluation of health care improvement initiatives. Acad Pediatr 2013;13(6 Suppl):S23-30 doi: S1876-2859(13)00099-5 [pii]

10.1016/j.acap.2013.04.007[published Online First: Epub Date]|.


Coordinated Care and a Hundred Reasons to Be Cheerful

jules_for_web_site

As the ‘Integration Pioneers’ get off the ground, Jules Acton, director of engagement & membership, at charity coalition National Voices, explains why many patient groups are optimistic about real progress. This blog is brought to you by BMJ Quality. For more quality improvement resources go to quality.bmj.com

If you ask people with long-term conditions about the changes they want to see in health and social care, most say: care and treatment that is coordinated around us.

A glance at National Voices’ ‘webs of care’ shows immediately why this call is so strong. The ‘webs’ were drawn up by people who use services, and their families, to demonstrate the tangle of contacts they are trying to navigate. This lack of coordination leads to stress, repetition, waste and, at times, can also threaten people’s safety.

But, of course, coordination in our vast and varied systems of health and social care isn’t straightforward. This is why, at National Voices, we were so pleased about the government announcements on ‘Integration Pioneers’: 14 local areas which could herald a new era in person-centred care.

Before the more initiative-weary of you tune out, I’d urge you to stay with me for a few minutes. There are some important aspects to the Integration Pioneers, which could propel them to success and enable them to bring about real, big and positive change.

For a start, this isn’t only about the 14 chosen Pioneers. There were a huge number of applications for the Pioneers programme – more than 100 – from two thirds of our local areas. That means over 100 different localities, each with multiple organisations, showing a will to work across boundaries: across health and social care; primary and secondary care and all the other points where patients fall through gaps. It indicates an energy for care coordination and a belief in a new way forward. And this energy is coming from the ground up, where it really matters. So, while the government support is important, this drive is less about responding to diktats from on high, but about teams of professionals seeing the Pioneers programme as an opportunity to push out the boat. And, while not all of the areas that applied could become official ‘Pioneers’, that doesn’t mean they can’t also drive forward themselves, share the learning and add to the momentum.

Another cause for optimism is that most of the above have shown a will to work towards a common vision, developed with people who use the services. This is based on the Narrative for Person-Centred Coordinated Care. This is truly significant, because ‘integrated care’ has been interpreted in a great many different ways in the past. As the Health & Social Care Act came into being there were at least 175 different definitions floating around in the ether.

In response to this confusion, NHS England commissioned National Voices to work with people who use services as well as professionals, to develop a vision we could all sign up to. This has happened. It was published in May as part of a common purpose framework to which the Department of Health, NHS England, the Local Government Association, Monitor and all the other national system leading organisations committed. And it aligns strongly ‘Making it Real’  a key personalisation initiative by TLAP. The Narrative redefines ‘integrated care’ as person-centred coordinated care, which, to the service user, means:

“I can plan my care with people who work together to understand me and my carer(s),
allow me control, and bring together services to achieve the outcomes important to me.”

It goes on to offer context in the form of more ‘I statements’ which describe, in detail, what coordinated care looks and feels like to people who use services.

So we have a common vision, we have momentum and we are optimistic. But we aren’t starry eyed. Person centred coordinated care won’t happen overnight, and certainly not across the whole country. The new programmes need time to grow and adapt. Their teams won’t get everything right first time. And this is fine as long as they are able to move on from mistakes and share the learning.

This is where the government comes back in. To nurture coordinated care and ensure the success of the new programmes, our government now needs to learn to sit back, be supportive but resist the urge to dabble, interfere and chuck in new, competing initiatives. As the election looms we hope all political parties will show maturity around this, with their manifestos underpinning solid progress towards person-centred care, rather than revolution and upheaval.

At National Voices we will be championing this need to nurture and not to keep on overhauling. We’ll also be leading work on some extra materials to support coordinated care, such as a toolkit for care and support planning. If you’d like to receive newsletter updates on these then let me know on jules.acton@nationalvoices.org.uk or @JulesActon. And if you are involved in coordinated care programmes, please let us know about your progress so we can help share the learning. We look forward to hearing from you.

 

 


Compassionate Care – Whose Job is it Anyway?

Dr Sean Elyan Medical Director, Gloucester Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Trustee, The Point of Care Foundation

Dr Sean Elyan
Medical Director, Gloucester Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Trustee, The Point of Care Foundation

Dr Sean Elyan describes  undertaking a listening exercise with staff following the publication of the Francis report, at Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

 The Director of Nursing and I did this work so I was slightly affronted when a senior nursing colleague claimed that compassionate care was the responsibility of the nursing body and doctors should not be interfering. Preparing myself to respond intelligently when next challenged in this way, I thought I would assess what emphasis was afforded to different groups in the Mid Staffordshire report.  I was reassured to find that the executive summary says:  ‘[Patients] must receive effective services from caring, compassionate and committed staff, working within a common culture’.  However it would be wrong not to acknowledge that the summary mentions compassion 16 times and of these, 11 relate directly to nursing and only five could be considered to include other staff groups.

Within our trust we have started a project, initially with The King’s Fund and now with The Point of Care Foundation, to test and disseminate an approach to strengthening relationships between staff and patients.  These Schwartz Center Rounds, adopted from an innovative approach now used in many hospitals in America, have been revealing.  Staff from any discipline use narrative to relate the challenge of providing care from their own perspective.  This reflective practice, unusual because it takes place in a multi-disciplinary forum, is followed by a facilitated discussion encouraging the audience to relay similar examples that resonate with the case they have just heard. The discussions regularly and rapidly get to the heart of the complex web of tensions that suffuse care as it is provided on a daily basis.  Ranging from the distress felt by staff following failed paediatric resuscitation, through the impossible pressures of a surgeon’s busiest day, to the observations of a bed manager trying to navigate a patient within a system of increasing demand and expectation, these sessions more than any other I have witnessed reveal how difficult our daily job is. I regularly walk away from them as the clinical lead humbled by the commitment and skill shown by healthcare assistants, physiotherapists, secretaries and porters not to mention nurses and doctors.  And within this is a clarity that these sessions are not to find solutions but just to talk and have time to share, and to recognise that as healthcare staff we all experience similar situations and emotions.  They consistently demonstrate that when staff hear a senior colleague reveal how difficult they personally found dealing with a particular situation, or confirm that they have also experienced something which another member of staff has described, they find it incredibly empowering and supportive.  I can honestly say that of all the tasks I undertake in the trust, this monthly hour is the most productive and invigorating.

The Schwartz Center Round methodology requires a doctor from the trust to act as clinical lead, championing the process and working with a trained facilitator to help plan and run the sessions. By getting a doctor to act as clinical lead, it acknowledges that caring is not just ‘nurses’ work’ and helps to ensure that doctors attend the sessions along with colleagues from other disciplines.

So as I muse on another section of the Francis report in which there is a call to arms to introduce an ‘aptitude test for compassion and caring’ I think to myself ‘what would this test look like?’  We have recently introduced a question into our consultant interviews asking for candidates to give examples of an action at work they have taken that reveals them to be a particularly compassionate doctor.  Their answers seem to range from what I would consider normal day to day work to genuine and moving illustrations of an exemplar approach.  The Schwartz Center Rounds give a tantalising glimpse into compassionate care and how to recognise it.  For something that seems so easy to identify in these session, it remains unclear to me how to measure it.  However, I for one would wholeheartedly endorse Robert Francis’ challenge, beseeching us to start exploring ways to do so. If we can develop a measure for compassion, I hope we find doctors as capable of this work as nurses or any other staff group.


A call to action: Helen Bevan’s blog

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERARocking the boat and staying in it: how to succeed as a radical in healthcare


Part 2: Start by improving myself

Helen Bevan blogs about topics related to improvement, innovation and change on a big scale. Helen works as part of the Delivery Team of NHS Improving Quality, @NHSIQ, the national improvement team for the NHS in England. All views are her own. Follow her on Twitter @HelenBevan.

 

Yesterday, I was clever so I wanted to change the world.

Today, I am wise so I am changing myself

Anon via Twitter

A lot of people responded to my last blog which was an introduction to tactics for thriving and surviving as a healthcare radical. Four things struck me about that response:

  1. There are a lot of radicals/rebels out there in the healthcare system; passionate people who support the patient-centred goals of healthcare organisations, who are willing to take responsibility for change but who question and challenge the current ways of going about change
  2. “Radical” status isn’t related to hierarchy or position and we don’t have to work in the NHS to qualify as a healthcare radical. A wide variety of people responded to the blog; this included radical patient leaders  and radical Chief Executives
  3. We have to find ways to unite and mobilise this radical community; this is a latent and potentially powerful reservoir of energy for change
  4. We must help healthcare leaders to understand the difference between a radical/rebel and a troublemaker (or good rebel/bad rebel) and exploit the talents of that radical/rebel community for the greater good

As I trailed in the last blog, I’m going to discuss four of the key tactics for healthcare radicals in more depth over the next few weeks. The first of these tactics is start by improving myself.

As a change agent, I frequently look at the world around me and identify things that need improving. If we are to deliver safe, high quality care to every patient and to make the most of our precious healthcare resources, we need to continuously improve processes and systems of care. Yes, this is really important, but as healthcare radicals we have to start at an earlier point in the foodchain of improvement. To quote Aldous Huxley: “There’s only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that’s your own self.” So before I am tempted to launch into a massive effort to influence other people change the way they think or do things, I have to start by reflecting on and changing myself. I have to understand myself, because the person who will be the hardest for me to lead through change is me. I’m always inspired by the work of David Whyte who is a corporate poet. He understands this completely when he says: “I do not think you can really deal with change without a person asking real questions about who they are and how they belong in the world.’ (The Heart Aroused 1994)

I am writing this blog in the week after the publication of Don Berwick’s recommendations to improve the safety of patients in England: “A promise to learn – a commitment to act” so I thought I might use the Berwick report to illustrate some of the points I want to make about healthcare radicals. Like so many leaders of improvement in the English National Health Service, I am thrilled to see these recommendations, which are a compelling call to action for change, based on evidence, to make the English NHS the safest system for patients in the world. As Paul Batalden said in a response to the earlier report of the Francis inquiry, healthcare is at the same time a “simple, complicated and complex” phenomenon. Some of the commentators who have criticised the Berwick report wanted to see more “hard edged” recommendations related to mechanisms for enforcement or regulation, checklists, minimum standards and/or behavioural incentive systems. My response is that many of the solutions that these commentators seek are “simple” solutions which are not, on their own, reliable levers for change in a highly complex world.  Experience shows us how these simple solutions can push the system in a certain direction, distort priorities and often (unintentionally) create the opposite effect to the changes we are seeking. The gift of the Berwick recommendations is that they offer us a starting point for an aligned set of actions, at multiple levels of the system simultaneously, that give us (collectively) a fighting chance to transform patient care. As a longtime student of large scale change, I would say that the Berwick recommendations offer a more sophisticated and well-constructed blueprint for change in a complex system than we have seen in any previous change plan for the NHS.

So where do we, as healthcare radicals, fit in this complex system of change? It would be easy to look at the recommendations of the Berwick report and question whether we, as individual change agents, can make a contribution, at least in the short term, whilst our leaders work out how they are going to respond to the recommendations. After all, the Berwick report says that safety is mostly NOT about individuals; it is the systems, procedures, conditions and environments that cause the most patient harm. Consequently, many of the recommendations are for “systematic” solutions, involving setting up systems for continuous learning, innovation and improvement. There is a risk that we radicals might feel that we have to take a back seat whilst our organisations and leaders take responsibility for establishing these new systems, waiting for the patient safety change agenda to get around to including us, so we can play our part.

But we just can’t just wait whilst someone else starts the change as a) it might be a long wait and b) more patients are likely to be harmed in the waiting period. I’m not saying that we should rush off and start making changes on our own, regardless of what is being planned in the wider system. However, as healthcare radicals, we do need to be creating our own goals for change right now, strategising about how and where we can best make our contribution to the bigger purpose, reaching out and building alliances with others and demonstrating willingness to move the change agenda forward, despite the challenges and scepticism that might face us. When we have the courage to act proactively like this, we find that most organisations will value these behaviours, even where the organisation doesn’t currently have a strong improvement or learning culture. You see, each of us who leads and/or facilitates change is a signal generator. Our words and deeds are constantly scrutinised and interpreted by the people around us in our teams, organisations and in the wider system. The amplification effect of what we do and say is far greater than we imagine.  The most powerful way to inspire others to change is to be the vanguard for that change. If we want other people to take a risk and change the way they think or organise for patient safety, we have to take the lead. I like the way that Tanveer Naseer describes it:

You have to be the first one up and off the high dive you’re asking others to leap from. Ask yourself: where am I playing it too safe and what is that safety costing me? Then leap from your platform of safety into the cold water of change.

One of the aspects of the Berwick report that I most welcome (and fits with the evidence base on large scale change) is the focus on learning as a strategy for transformation. The report sets the bold goal of transforming the NHS into a learning organisation that continuously reduces patient harm through learning. I want to link this learning theme with another key theme in the report: driving out fear. The report stresses the toxic effect of fear on both safety and improvement. I would add that fear is also the biggest barrier to learning. It’s hard to learn when you feel fear.  The Berwick proposals require many organisational leaders (and even people who perceive themselves as healthcare radicals) to move away from a status quo that they feel comfortable with into a brave new world of quality control, quality improvement and quality planning on a scale never seen before and that can be a scary thing. As Peter Senge wrote in The Fifth Discipline (as quoted by Chip Bell):

“When we see that to learn we must be willing to look foolish, to let another teach us, learning doesn’t always look so good anymore…Only with the support and fellowship of another can we face the dangers of learning meaningful things.”

The evidence base on learning organisations emphasises the importance of leaders who role model humility and vulnerability. So we have to ensure that the coaches, teachers and mentors that deliver and support this learning have to be able to recognise the fear and create positive learning experiences, focused not just on safety science and quality improvement methods but on the emotional processes of change. To quote Rosabeth Moss Kantor, “Leaders are more powerful role models when they learn than when they teach”.

This situation creates a specific call to action to healthcare radicals. We, the signal generators at the vanguard of change, must embrace the spirit of the student. This means taking responsibility for our own learning and being open to continuous learning; embracing new ideas and approaches and being willing to challenge and change our existing belief systems. We have to be the best, most active, most humble learners.

In addition, our learning must move beyond knowledge and skills. For healthcare radicals it is important, but not enough, to continuously build our knowledge of improvement methods and approaches. It’s also important, but not enough, to take responsibility for our own development as skilled leaders or facilitators of change. What sets healthcare radicals apart is the extent to which we purposefully seek to live and be improvement, in the way we operate in the world and in our interactions and relationships with others. I think that the diagramme below from Rianna Moore sums this up very well. It’s only when we live the things we believe in (that is, when

we can align our sense of deeper life mission or calling, our values and the activities that we undertake every day) that we can truly energise our teams and organisations by working from our true selves and make our full contribution as healthcare radicals.

Being a great change agent is about knowing, doing, living and

 being improvement

The Berwick recommendations provide us with a one of the best opportunities ever for radical system change. However, history tells us that organisational or system transformation is always preceded by personal transformation. So if, as organisational radicals, we want to play our role in this transformation, we have to focus deeply on our own perspective and the ways we interact with and influence others. The more people we can

influence in a positive way and the more that we (as organisa

tional radicals) can unleash that powerful reservoir of energy for change, the mo

re our influence and impact will grow.

image001

Individually and collectively, we can play a truly significant role in helping to implement the changes that are needed in healthcare processes and systems; delivering the outcomes and experiences that our patients deserve and building the continuous learning and improvement system that will make the English NHS the safest healthcare system in the world.

Calls to action for this week

  1. Read A promise to learn – a commitment to act from the perspective of a healthcare radical; consider what your input will be to making the potential a reality and how you can contribute to the wider goals of your organisation, system or community for patient safety
  2. Think about how you adopt or build the spirit of the student and how your role as an active learner can be a catalyst for others and for the “learning organisation” movement
  3. Reflect on the extent to which you are knowing, doing, living and being healthcare improvement and patient safety; to what extent are you operating from your true self? How can you make your impact as a healthcare radical even more effective?

I declare that that I have read and understood the BMJ Group policy on declaration of interests and I have no relevant interests to declare.


A call to action: Helen Bevan’s blog

Rocking the boat and staying in it: how to succeed as a radical in healthcare

Helen Bevan (@HelenBevan on Twitter) works with NHS Improving Quality, the national improvement team for the NHS in England.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Anyone who chooses to be a change agent or improvement leader in healthcare doesn’t choose an easy life. There are so many forces opposing the changes we want to see; a system that rewards people for “keeping the trains running” rather than radical change, those with the power and/or a vested interest in keeping the status quo, colleagues and leaders who are sceptical, apathetic or scared of change.  Many times in my career in improvement, I have felt isolated, vulnerable and misunderstood. People have treated me like some kind of oddball when I have craved to be taken seriously and appreciated for my efforts as a leader of change. Yet big change only happens in healthcare organisations because of heretics and radicals; the courageous, passionate people who are willing to take responsibility for change, who support their organisation in its mission but also challenge the status quo.

As Martin Luther King described it: ‘‘The saving of our world . . . will come, not through the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of a nonconforming minority’’.

The hope of healthcare rests with the non-conformists, the radicals, the heretics and mavericks in our midst.

So who are the radicals in healthcare organisations? Research by Debra Meyerson  shows that the most effective radicals are those who have learnt to oppose and conform at the same time. Or, as she puts it, “they are able to rock the boat and yet stay in it”. These are change leaders who stand up to challenge the status quo when they see there could be a better way. They develop the ability to walk the fine line between difference and fit, inside and outside. These leaders are driven by their own convictions and values which makes them credible and authentic to others in their organisations. Most importantly of all, they take action as individuals that ignite broader collective action that leads to big change. These leaders already exist in every healthcare organisation, in many different roles and multiple levels. They aren’t typically the Chief Executives or senior clinical leaders yet the impact of their change activities are often just as significant. We saw so many examples of this on NHS Change Day 2013. Many organisation-wide change efforts that led to tangible improvements for large numbers of patients were initiated by grass roots front line leaders.

Lois Kelly has developed some fantastic resources for “rebels at work” and I would recommend a trip round her website to all healthcare radicals. Helpfully, she makes the distinction between a “rebel” and a “troublemaker” and I have adapted her table below.  As rebels, we continuously seek innovative new ways of delivering care. We are committed to the patient-centred mission and values of our organisation. We are driven by our passion for better care for patients. We are optimistic about the future, the potential for change and see many possibilities for doing things in different ways. We generate energy for change which attracts others to unite with us for a common cause

“Troublemakers” also challenge the status quo but in a way that is very different to “rebels”. Troublemakers complain about the current state of affairs but their focus tends to be around their own personal position rather than achieving the goals of the organisation.

Rebel

Troublemaker

create

complain

mission-focused

me-focused

passion

anger

optimist

pessimist

energy-generating

energy-sapping

attract

alienate

possibilities

problems

together

alone

Source: Adapted from Lois Kelly  www.foghound.com

They are angry about how things are and don’t have much confident that things will get better in the future. They alienate other people because if others link with them, troublemakers will sap their energy. This just confirms what troublemakers probably know already– they don’t belong.

There are a couple of points I wanted to make about rebels and troublemakers. Firstly, many organisational leaders view ANYONE who challenges the status quo as a troublemaker, Therefore, rebels get unfairly labelled as troublemakers. It has happened to me on more than one occasion. It feels SO unjust but we are to be effective change agents, we have to anticipate that it might happen and learn to deal with it. Secondly, lots of change leaders  in healthcare start out as rebels but their voice doesn’t get heard, they begin to stridently question the status quo in a manner which is radical and self-defeating and they cross the line from rebel to troublemaker. As rebels, we have a responsibility to look out for this and try to prevent  it happening by building relationships and forming alliances with others who challenge the status quo.

So what are the tactics to survive and thrive as a radical/rebel/heretic/maverick in healthcare? I would like to suggest four:

  1. Start by improving myself
  2. Build alliances for change
  3. Work out what might help others to change
  4. Don’t be a martyr

I will discuss each of these issues in turn in my next four blogs. If you would like a preview on these topics, you can watch this short film

Corporate Rebels United is a global movement of “corporate rebels” across multiple industries and sectors. Many healthcare rebels/radicals are part of this. This is the manifesto of Corporate Rebels United which perfectly captures the mission of organisational radicals in healthcare to deliver the new truth of healthcare transformation

We are architects and scouts into the future, and we want to guide our organisations in navigating a safe path from now to then:

Relentlessly

Challenging the status quo

Changing the rules

Saying the unsaid

Spreading the innovation virus

Seeding tribal energy

With no fear

With a cause to do good

Leading by being from our true selves

Going after the un-named quality

Relentlessly

Calls to action for this week

  1. Make time to reflect on your own role as a healthcare rebel/radical; what are the implications for the ways you operate as an agent or leader of change?
  2. Seek out other rebels/radicals and discuss tactics for rocking the boat and staying in it
  3. Identify and support others who are at risk of crossing the line from “rebel” to “troublemaker”


How BMJ Hack Day showed some ways forward in transforming healthcare

Helen Bevan (@helenbevan on Twitter) is part of the delivery team for NHS Improving Quality, the national improvement team of the NHS in England. 

I live in a world of healthcare improvement, quality and safety. I spend my hours working with others to build action for change and transformation and seeking to solve the eternal challenge of how to help change spread from one place to another.

Increasingly in my world, people are talking about “hack days” and “hackathons”. A number of the young NHS leaders and trainee doctors that I interact with take part in “NHS Hack Days”; the Management Innovation eXchange, is running global virtual hackathons to reinvent the way that organisational leaders lead change and across the world, governments are using hack day methods to create more transparent, accessible services for citizens. A hack day is essentially an event of one or more days where people involved in software development (known as “developers” or “devs”), subject matter experts and others get together to invent creative solutions or new insights to tricky problems. I can see from my world that leaders of change are starting to apply methods that originated in the software industry (and were about technical data-driven solutions) to solving big strategic issues such as strategic planning, community building, system redesign, and transformational leadership development.

Team SGULIT hard at work at #BMJhack

Team SGULIT hard at work at #BMJhack

So I thought I had better experience a hack day. When BMJ offered me the chance to be a judge at their hack on 6th and 7th July, I jumped at the opportunity to take part, observe and learn. The event started at 10am on Saturday morning and ended at 7pm on Sunday night. There were about 50 people taking part in the hack day, about two thirds of which were “devs”, many of whom had no or little health background. There were also medical students, academics and clinicians. They could choose from one of four challenges to work on. The first was around “digital medical students”, building innovative applications to help create future doctors. The second challenge was about creating a “zero harm NHS”. The third challenge was about contextualising knowledge content, such as BMJ Best Practice, to local settings around the world and the final challenge was about how to revolutionise the scholarly publication process, to enable greater collaboration and access.

So after the initial briefing, the participants started to share ideas, identify potential areas to work on, define their hacks and build teams. Some people had bought topics that they had already been working on for months, others offered their services as specialist contributors to teams. They were given access to BMJ data to work with. Over the next 24 hours, I observed the teams diagnosing problems, generating ideas, experimenting and prototyping their solutions. At first, I was surprised that some of the teams didn’t spend longer finding out about the context of the problems they were seeking to solve, by talking to the people who were present at the hack day who could give them a lot of information. Many of them dived straight into the data. What I realised after a while is that they used the data to understand the problem and the context. I was astonished at what they could do with data!

All of the developers were volunteers. They gave up their weekend to take part in the challenge. Many of them slept overnight at the venue and worked well into the night creating their solutions. There was a fantastic spirit and enthusiasm for the topics. At 4pm on Sunday, each of the 13 teams took part in a “show and tell” to present their solutions to the judges. There was a wide range of hacks, ranging from on-line calendars for clinical students in hospitals to a motion tracker to prevent patient falls and pressure ulcers to medical decision trees using basic mobile phones in locations where availability of technology is limited. In nearly every case, the presenter of the idea had actually built a computer application that they were physically able to demonstrate. They had done this in a period of a little over 24 hours. They challenged my pre-conceptions about what can be achieved in a short timescale.

Participants start to show and tell their contributions at #BMJhack

Participants start to show and tell their contributions at #BMJhack

You can read about the winners in the next copy of BMJ. There is also a blog from a member of the winning team. The winning entries tended to be those where developers and clinicians had formed teams together, combining specialist developer expertise with subject-matter expertise to tackle big problems in a context-specific way.

I benefitted so much from this experience. These are some of the learning points I took away:

  • We need to engage lots of different change agents to tackle the challenges of health and care and get fresh eyes on the issues. This weekend I learnt a lot about change from 15 and 17 year old developers
  • Open innovation (innovating in partnership with those outside of your organisation or usual collaborators) is a very powerful way to get new ideas and perspectives and we need to do more of it
  • People will volunteer and give of themselves greatly if we set the challenges in an exciting way, engage with their values, support them to work with others for a shared purpose and value their contributions
  • There is massive potential to build communities of learning and action, based on hack methods, to tackle some of our biggest challenges
  • The best solutions come when we combine effective data analysis with creativity and imagination and human values and intuition

Thanks BMJ for inviting me to my first hack day. I hope it is the first of many.


Improving the quality of data collected by community health workers in rural Malawi

JuniorBazile_PIHHenryMakungwa_PIH

Dr. Junior Bazile and Henry Makungwa

Dr. Junior Bazile is a Haitian physician who received a medical degree in Haiti and obtained a master’s degree in public health from the University of Alabama at Birmingham under a Fulbright Scholarship. After several years working in Haiti and in Burundi, he is now working with Partners In Health in Malawi as the clinical director and community health director.

Henry Peter Makungwa is Malawian, and is currently the manager of the Village Health Worker program, overseeing all activities related to the household chart. He has been extensively trained in agriculture extension and holds a certificate in that field. After many years working with NGOs in the field, he joined PIH/APZU in 2008 and is one of the pioneers of the household chart program in Malawi.

In 2007, Abwenzi Pa Za Umoyo (APZU), the sister organization of Partners In Health (PIH) in Malawi, began a community health worker program to support HIV care in the remote, rural district of Neno. The program was designed to complement and be integrated with a Ministry of Health national HIV care program. The addition of community health workers allows HIV care and treatment to reach Malawians living in remote areas where geography makes it exceedingly difficult for them to access care.

In this setting, community health workers provide a critical link between the community and the local health facility. They visit patients between medical appointments, ensuring medications are taken as prescribed, answering questions, and monitoring for medical and social complications that might hinder a patient’s successful treatment. They also refer and accompany patients to a health facility when necessary.

During their regular visits, community health workers (CHW) collect data on a paper household chart, developed by PIH/APZU and the Ministry of Health. Data about all members of the community are collected on the chart, aggregated by site supervisors, and entered into a database. The resulting data give PIH/APZU a rich window into the lives of the people we serve. The information allows managers and supervisors to identify people suffering from inadequate housing, food shortages, a lack of potable water, or to find communities where a lack of information and cultural barriers are preventing pregnant women from attending antenatal appointments.

But these uses of the household chart are only possible with quality data. Challenges with the quality of CHW-collected data have been well documented in settings of poverty. In Neno, informal assessments had already indicated that household chart data were of poor quality, which prevented PIH/APZU from using the information. Since CHWs knew the data they were collecting were not being used or even analyzed, they tended not to pay attention to securing complete and correct data. In addition, the staff responsible for aggregating household chart data saw the task as an unwelcome addition to their existing workloads, which led to inconsistent data quality checks and further reduced the usability of the data.

In order to assess the quality of household chart data, PIH partnered with researchers at Harvard’s Department of Global Health and Social Medicine to apply Lot Quality Assurance Sampling (LQAS). LQAS is a classification technique originally used in manufacturing to evaluate the quality of, for example, a batch (or ‘lot’) of T-shirts that a factory produces. LQAS allows the manufacturer to take a sample of T-shirts and determine if the quality of the lot is acceptable. PIH uses the same approach with household chart data—staff examine only a few household charts from a health center (the ‘lot’) and determine whether the summary data quality from dozens of CHWs is statistically good enough to produce reliable results.

In July 2011 we did a baseline LQAS assessment of data quality, using five ‘clusters’ each made up of several different health posts. The results were sobering. Four out of five clusters had poor CHW data quality. From those results, we knew intervention was needed, and which health posts needed it most. We also knew where data quality was acceptable, with one cluster acting as a positive example where we could identify what was working well and extract best practices.

Based on this initial assessment, we implemented several measures to improve data quality. Responsibility for data aggregation was given to the site supervisors at each health center, who were eager to help with the improvement effort. Other staff members were assigned the specific role of implementing quality improvement measures based on the results of the LQAS assessments, which would ensure that patients got the services they need.

The resulting improvement was overwhelming. Three months after the baseline assessment that showed 80% of clusters with poor quality, we had turned the proportion on its head. Now, 80% of clusters showed good data quality. And by March 2012, all five clusters showed good data quality. The data that were previously so fraught with quality issues could now be used to improve the quality services at PIH/APZU facilities.

By using LQAS to identify data quality issues, and then intervening to improve data quality, we made the household chart a usable, practical tool for monitoring and improving the health of our patients. By accurately measuring trends in the community and tailoring our services to meet the needs of the rural poor, PIH/APZU is better positioned to appropriately address the burden of disease. These services break our patients out of the cycle of poverty and disease that in some cases has plagued them for generations.

Learn more about PIH at www.PIH.org.


Join our first monthly BMJ Quality Improvement Clinic

 

Improving healthcare by yourself isn’t easy and having the opportunity to ask experts for advice can really help your progress. Join us on Tuesday 15th January at 1700 GMT for our first monthly BMJ Quality Improvement Clinic.

This online webinar is your opportunity to put your quality improvement challenges and problems to our experts. We also hope you’ll share your own experience and solutions with others from the improvement community.

Each webinar will last 60 minutes and you will have the opportunity to submit your questions in advance. Sessions are free to attend and you don’t have to be a user of BMJ Quality Improvement Programmes to join us.

To register your interest in attending and to find out more please click here.

Tuesday 15th January 1700 GMT (London; Dublin)

0400 EDT (Sydney)
0900 PST (San Francisco; Los Angeles)
1200 EST (New York; Boston)
1800 CET (Paris; Berlin)


Join our first monthly BMJ Quality Improvement Clinic

 

Improving healthcare by yourself isn’t easy and having the opportunity to ask experts for advice can really help your progress. Join us on Tuesday 15th January at 1700 GMT for our first monthly BMJ Quality Improvement Clinic.

This online webinar is your opportunity to put your quality improvement challenges and problems to our experts. We also hope you’ll share your own experience and solutions with others from the improvement community.

Each webinar will last 60 minutes and you will have the opportunity to submit your questions in advance. Sessions are free to attend and you don’t have to be a user of BMJ Quality Improvement Programmes to join us.

To register your interest in attending and to find out more please click here.

Tuesday 15th January 1700 GMT (London; Dublin)

0400 EDT (Sydney)
0900 PST (San Francisco; Los Angeles)
1200 EST (New York; Boston)
1800 CET (Paris; Berlin)