Identifying contextually relevant improvement measures, illustrated by a case of executive walkrounds

Abstract

Purpose: A method to engage salient organisational stakeholders in identifying and ranking measures of healthcare improvement programs is described. The method is illustrated using Executive WalkRounds (EWRs) in a multi-site Australian Health District. Design/methodology/approach: Subject matter experts (SMEs) conducted document analysis, identified potential EWRs measures, created driver diagrams and then eliminated weak measures. Next, a panel of executives skilled in EWRs ranked and ratified the potential measures using a modified Delphi technique. Findings: EWRs measurement selection demonstrated the feasibility of the method. Of the total time to complete the method 79% was contributed by SMEs, 14% by administration personnel and 7% by executives. Document analysis revealed three main EWRs aims. Ten of 28 potential measures were eliminated by the SME review. After repeated Delphi rounds the executive panel achieved consensus (75% cut-off) on seven measures. One outcome, one process and one implementation fidelity metric were selected to measure and monitor the impact of EWRs in the health district. Practical implications: Perceptions of weak relationships between measures and intended improvements can lead to practitioner scepticism. This work offers a structured method to combine the technical expertise of SMEs with the practical knowledge of healthcare staff in selecting improvement measures. Originality/value: This research describes and demonstrates a novel method to systematically leverage formal and practical types of expertise to select measures that are strongly linked to local quality improvement goals. The method can be applied in diverse healthcare settings.