P078: An environmental scan of quality improvement and patient safety activities in emergency medicine in Canada
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
Introduction: Quality improvement and patient safety (QIPS) activities in healthcare have become increasingly important, but it is unclear what the current national landscape is with regards to how individual EM departments are supporting QIPS activities and evaluating their success and sustainability. We sought to assess how Canadian medical school EM departments/divisions and major Canadian teaching hospitals approach QIPS programs and efforts, with regards to training, available infrastructure, education, scholarly activities, and perceived needs. Methods: We developed 2 electronic surveys through expert panel consensus to assess important themes identified by the CAEP QIPS Committee, including a)formal training/skill capacity; b)operational infrastructure; c)educational activities; d)academic and scholarship, and e)perceived gaps and needs. Surveys were pilot-tested and revised by authors. “Survey 1” (21 questions) was sent by email to all 17 Canadian medical school affiliated EM Department Chairs and Academic Hospitals Department Chiefs; “Survey 2” (33 questions) to 11 identified local QIPS leads in these hospitals. This was followed by 2 monthly email reminders to participate in the survey. We present descriptive statistics including proportions, means, medians and ranges where appropriate. Results: 22/70 (31.4%) Department Chairs/Chiefs completed Survey 1. Most (81.8%) reported formal positions dedicated to QIPS activities within their groups, with a mixed funding model. Less than half of these positions have dedicated logistical support. 11/12 (91.7%) local QIPS leads completed Survey 2. Two-thirds (63.6%) reported explicit QIPS topics within residency curricula, but only 9.1% described QIPS training for staff physicians. 45% of respondents described successful academic scholarship output, with the total number of peer-reviewed QIPS-related publications per center ranging from 1-10 over the past 5 years. A minority of participants reported access to academic supports: methodologists (27.3%), administrative personnel (27.3%), and statisticians (9.1%). Conclusion: This environmental scan provides a snapshot of QIPS activities in EM across academic centers in Canada. We found significant local educational and academic efforts, although there is a discrepancy between the level of formal support/infrastructure and such activities. There remains opportunity to further advance QIPS efforts on a national level, as well as advocating and supporting local QIPS activities.
