Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T18:55:19.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Building improvement capacity in mental health services

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2020

Charles Vincent*
Affiliation:
Director, Oxford Healthcare Improvement, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, UK. Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Improving the delivery of existing treatment may often bring much greater benefits than developing new treatments and technologies. To achieve this, clinical teams and organisations need to build capacity for sustained and systematic improvement. Organisations can build improvement capacity and skills by developing permanent multidisciplinary centres to provide sustained inspiration, research, training and practical support for implementation and innovation. In the longer term, organisations need to build an infrastructure for quality improvement that includes an information system to track change and dedicated improvement leads across the organisation.

Type
Editorial
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2020

Health outcomes are improving rapidly in many countries. People are living longer and many previously fatal conditions have become treatable, enabling people to survive and retain a good quality of life. Although there have been many advances, influential reports and studies in many countries have drawn attention to serious safety and quality problems in healthcare. The World Health Organization has observed that such problems are systemic and permeate all healthcare systems, whether public or private.1

Healthcare frequently falls below expected standards and causes harm to patients. Studies of hospitals in many countries, carried out by reviewing medical records, have found that between 8 and 12% of patients admitted to hospital suffer harm that is sufficiently severe to require at least one additional day in hospital.Reference Schwendimann, Blatter, Dhaini, Simon and Ausserhofer2 There is much less information available about the safety and quality of mental health services,Reference Kilbourne, Beck, Spaeth-Rublee, Ramanuj, O'Brien and Tomoyasu3 but there are some worrying findings. For instance, an Australian study found that adults with depression received an average of only 55% of recommended careReference Runciman, Hunt, Hannaford, Hibbert, Westbrook and Coiera4 and children with depression 33%.Reference Ellis, Wiles, Selig, Churruca, Lingam and Long5

Patients will benefit from the development of new treatments for mental disorders and from increased resources for mental healthcare. However, health gains can also be achieved by improving the safety and reliability of current treatments. Improving the delivery of existing treatment may often bring much greater benefits than developing new treatments and technologies.Reference Woolf and Johnson6 To achieve this, clinical teams and organisations need to build capacity for sustained and systematic improvement.

The nature of improvement

Quality improvement is often narrowly identified with a set of techniques adapted from industrial settings. They include the US Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Model for Improvement, which, among other things, combines measurement with tests of small change (plan–do-study–act cycles). These techniques provide a useful toolkit and are applicable to many problems, but more mature improvement organisations will draw on a much wider suite of methods when the occasion demands.

The most immediately effective quality and safety improvements have been those with a strong focus on a core clinical issue or a specific clinical process or pathway, often using checklists and ‘care bundles’ of interventions that increase the consistency of care.Reference Shekelle, Pronovost, Wachter, McDonald, Schoelles and Dy7 Many other types of intervention can be employed to help staff to work more effectively.Reference Vincent and Amalberti8 For instance, medication errors have been reduced by standardising formularies and protocols, by including pharmacists in ward rounds and by introducing computerised prescribing. Errors can also be reduced by improving working conditions, for instance by minimising the interruptions and distractions that greatly increase propensity to error.Reference Vincent9

Centres of improvement

Quality improvement is often a small-scale, local activity in which each team painstakingly works out its own solution for each problem.Reference Dixon-Woods10 The core quality improvement methods are aimed at the engagement of frontline staff, who are empowered to address problems in their own environment. This is certainly valuable but not sufficient to address complex, entrenched problems. Working in this isolated way means a lack of critical mass to support the right kinds of expertise, such as the technical skill in human factors or ergonomics necessary to engineer a process or devise a safety solution.Reference Dixon-Woods10

Larger organisations can build improvement capacity and skills by developing permanent multidisciplinary centres to provide sustained inspiration, research, training and practical support for implementation and innovation.Reference Vincent, Batalden and Davidoff11 Small units exist within many hospitals and other healthcare organisations, but are often mainly concerned with regulation and compliance. The centres described in the series of papers on quality improvement in this issue of BJPsych International have a wider vision, however. They aim to systematically improve the safety and quality of care provided to patients and the working lives of their staff. While they are very different in size, scope and in their place in the healthcare system, they share some common characteristics. First, they are led by people who are passionate about improving healthcare. Second, they have support from senior managers and executives in their organisations or region. Third, they all provide education and training programmes in quality and safety improvement, which range from short introductory courses to deep programmes of study. Fourth, they are all open to wider learning both within and outside their organisations. Finally, they have all built trust within their teams and organisations to enable open discussion of safety and quality issues. In the longer term, organisations must also build an infrastructure for quality improvement that includes an information system to track change, dedicated improvement leads across the organisation, and an education programme and a department or an institute to support improvement.Reference Ovretveit and Staines12

Making a start

Many reading these papers will admire what has been achieved in Jönköping, Tuscany or other centres but think that this could not be achieved in their own environment. All these centres, however, began with a small group of enthusiastic people who tried to tackle immediate local problems. From such small beginnings, they eventually built the established centres described. Wherever you work and in whatever system, we hope these papers and these centres will inspire you and support you on your improvement journey.

Funding

C.V. is supported by The Health Foundation.

Declaration of interest

None.

An ICMJE form is in the supplementary material, available online at https://doi.org/10.1192/bji.2020.27.

References

World Health Organization, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Bank. Delivering Quality Health Services: A Global Imperative for Universal Health Coverage. World Health Organization, 2018.Google Scholar
Schwendimann, R, Blatter, C, Dhaini, S, Simon, M, Ausserhofer, D. The occurrence, types, consequences and preventability of in-hospital adverse events – a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res 2018; 18(1): 521.10.1186/s12913-018-3335-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kilbourne, AM, Beck, K, Spaeth-Rublee, B, Ramanuj, P, O'Brien, RW, Tomoyasu, N, et al. Measuring and improving the quality of mental health care: a global perspective. World Psychiatry 2018; 17: 30–8.10.1002/wps.20482CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Runciman, WB, Hunt, TD, Hannaford, NA, Hibbert, PD, Westbrook, JI, Coiera, EW, et al. CareTrack: assessing the appropriateness of health care delivery in Australia. Med J Aust 2012; 197: 100–5.10.5694/mja12.10510CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, LA, Wiles, LK, Selig, R, Churruca, K, Lingam, R, Long, JC, et al. Assessing the quality of care for paediatric depression and anxiety in Australia: a population-based sample survey. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2019; 53: 1013–25.10.1177/0004867419866512CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woolf, SH, Johnson, RE. The break-even point: when medical advances are less important than improving the fidelity with which they are delivered. Ann Fam Med 2005; 3: 545–52.10.1370/afm.406CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shekelle, PG, Pronovost, PJ, Wachter, RM, McDonald, KM, Schoelles, K, Dy, SM, et al. The top patient safety strategies that can be encouraged for adoption now. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158: 365–8.10.7326/0003-4819-158-5-201303051-00001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vincent, C, Amalberti, R. Safer Healthcare: Strategies for the Real World. Springer, 2016.10.1007/978-3-319-25559-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vincent, C. Patient Safety (2nd edn). Wiley Blackwell, 2010.10.1002/9781444323856CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dixon-Woods, M. How to improve healthcare improvement – an essay by Mary Dixon-Woods. BMJ 2019; 367: l5514.10.1136/bmj.l5514CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vincent, C, Batalden, P, Davidoff, F. Multidisciplinary centres for safety and quality improvement: learning from climate change science. BMJ Qual Saf 2011; 20(suppl 1): i73–8.10.1136/bmjqs.2010.047985CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ovretveit, J, Staines, A. Sustained improvement? Findings from an independent case study of the Jonkoping quality program. Qual Manag Health Care 2007; 16: 6883.10.1097/00019514-200701000-00009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: PDF

Vincent supplementary material

Vincent supplementary material

Download Vincent supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1.3 MB
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.