Leahora Rotteau, Mercedes Magaz, Brian M. Wong, Sara Shearkhani, Mohammad Shabani, Rishma Pradhan, Bourne Auguste, Laurie Bourne, Jeff Powis, K. Smith
{"title":"Community-engaged co-design of a quality improvement capacity building program within an integrated health system in Ontario, Canada","authors":"Leahora Rotteau, Mercedes Magaz, Brian M. Wong, Sara Shearkhani, Mohammad Shabani, Rishma Pradhan, Bourne Auguste, Laurie Bourne, Jeff Powis, K. Smith","doi":"10.1108/jica-05-2023-0028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeAn integrated care system identified quality improvement (QI) capacity as a gap in advancing their integrated quality care priorities and improvement efforts. Here we describe the design and implementation of a QI capacity building program that aimed to (1) build QI capacity amongst diverse integrated care system members and (2) apply QI principles to advance integrated quality care priorities.Design/methodology/approachThe integrated care system leaders, including community members, partnered with the University of Toronto Centre for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety to co-design and deliver the QI capacity building program focused on improving cancer screening rates. An existing acute care capacity building program was adapted. Content included QI tools, data to identify and monitor QI priorities, equity considerations, and empowering participants as change agents.FindingsParticipants were satisfied with the content and delivery of the program. Some described using QI tools and strategies in practice following the workshop. Challenges to using the tools included the current pressures facing primary care and the health system, resources, and data availability.Practical implicationsThis QI capacity building program was challenging but feasible. Clarifying the target audience, being attentive to co-design, acknowledging post-pandemic system challenges and proactively addressing variable knowledge and barriers to QI work in practice will inform future iterations of this program.Originality/valueWhile many examples of QI education programs exist, the majority target a single healthcare sector. We describe a novel QI capacity building model that bridges healthcare sectors and includes patient partners and community members as teachers and participants.","PeriodicalId":51837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Integrated Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Integrated Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jica-05-2023-0028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
PurposeAn integrated care system identified quality improvement (QI) capacity as a gap in advancing their integrated quality care priorities and improvement efforts. Here we describe the design and implementation of a QI capacity building program that aimed to (1) build QI capacity amongst diverse integrated care system members and (2) apply QI principles to advance integrated quality care priorities.Design/methodology/approachThe integrated care system leaders, including community members, partnered with the University of Toronto Centre for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety to co-design and deliver the QI capacity building program focused on improving cancer screening rates. An existing acute care capacity building program was adapted. Content included QI tools, data to identify and monitor QI priorities, equity considerations, and empowering participants as change agents.FindingsParticipants were satisfied with the content and delivery of the program. Some described using QI tools and strategies in practice following the workshop. Challenges to using the tools included the current pressures facing primary care and the health system, resources, and data availability.Practical implicationsThis QI capacity building program was challenging but feasible. Clarifying the target audience, being attentive to co-design, acknowledging post-pandemic system challenges and proactively addressing variable knowledge and barriers to QI work in practice will inform future iterations of this program.Originality/valueWhile many examples of QI education programs exist, the majority target a single healthcare sector. We describe a novel QI capacity building model that bridges healthcare sectors and includes patient partners and community members as teachers and participants.