Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the contextual factors contributing to the sustainability of healthcare quality improvement (QI) initiatives. Design/methodology/approach Themes from semi-structured interviews with international healthcare leaders are compared with Kaplan and Provost et al.'s (2012) model for understanding success in quality (MUSIQ). Critical success factors within these themes are shown in detail. Findings The interviews provide a rich source of information on critical success factors. The themes largely correspond with MUSIQ, reinforcing its robustness. An important factor emerging from the interviews was the importance of engagement with patients and families in QI, and this needs consideration in seeking to understand context in QI. Research limitations/implications Interview participants represent a limited set of western countries and health systems. Their experiences may not hold true in other settings. Practical implications The detail on critical success factors provides QI practitioners with guidance on designing and implementing sustainable initiatives. Originality/value Including consideration of contextual factors for engagement with patients and families in frameworks for context in QI appears to be an original idea that will add value to such frameworks. Researchers in patient engagement are starting to address contextual factors and connections should be made with this work.

We demonstrated that the Delphi consensus process can be used to establish gold standards for a suite of SLMs used by a NZ Health Board (CM Health).

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify five quality improvement initiatives for healthcare system leaders, produced by such leaders themselves, and to provide some guidance on how these could be implemented. Design/methodology/approach A multi-stage modified-Delphi process was used, blending the Delphi approach of iterative information collection, analysis and feedback, with the option for participants to revise their judgments. Findings The process reached consensus on five initiatives: change information privacy laws; overhaul professional training and work in the workplace; use co-design methods; contract for value and outcomes across health and social care; and use data from across the public and private sectors to improve equity for vulnerable populations and the sickest people. Research limitations/implications Information could not be gathered from all participants at each stage of the modified-Delphi process, and the participants did not include patients and families, potentially limiting the scope and nature of input. Practical implications The practical implications are a set of findings based on what leaders would bring to a decision-making table in an ideal world if given broad scope and capacity to make policy and organisational changes to improve healthcare systems. Originality/value This study adds to the literature a suite of recommendations for healthcare quality improvement, produced by a group of experienced healthcare system leaders from a range of contexts.

Introduction Health systems internationally have developed new models of primary care to address health-care challenges. One such model is the Health Care Home (HCH),which has been widely adopted across New Zealand. Aim To explore the facilitators and barriers to implementation of the HCH in the southern health district (Otago and Southland). Methods Interviews with staff (n = 15) from seven general practices were undertaken. A rapid thematic analysis informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was conducted using the framework method. Results A number of implementation facilitators and barriers across three CFIR domains were identified: intervention characteristics, inner setting and implementation process. The intervention – the HCH – has well-designed core components (eg clinician triage, patient portals), but the adaptable periphery also needs addressing to ensure the core components fit the local context. In the inner setting, a positive implementation climate and readiness for change (a strong need for the change, compatibility, strong leadership, availability of resources, and a clear understanding of the HCH and timely practical support) were key for successful implementation. Although the HCH practices had detailed planning and performance monitoring systems in place, a successful implementation process required having a change management plan and ensuring whole-of-practice engagement. Discussion This evaluation has identified facilitators and barriers to implementing the HCH in one health district using implementation science theory (CFIR). It is imperative to tailor the HCH model to local needs and individual general practices for successful implementation.

No abstract