Article Text

Download PDFPDF

How guiding coalitions promote positive culture change in hospitals: a longitudinal mixed methods interventional study
  1. Elizabeth H Bradley1,
  2. Amanda L Brewster2,
  3. Zahirah McNatt3,
  4. Erika L Linnander2,
  5. Emily Cherlin2,
  6. Heather Fosburgh2,
  7. Henry H Ting4,
  8. Leslie A Curry2
  1. 1 Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York, USA
  2. 2 Yale School of Public Health, Global Health Leadership Institute, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
  3. 3 Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York, USA
  4. 4 Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Elizabeth H Bradley, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York, USA; EBradley{at}Vassar.edu

Abstract

Background Quality collaboratives are widely endorsed as a potentially effective method for translating and spreading best practices for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) care. Nevertheless, hospital success in improving performance through participation in collaboratives varies markedly. We sought to understand what distinguished hospitals that succeeded in shifting culture and reducing 30-day risk-standardised mortality rate (RSMR) after AMI through their participation in the Leadership Saves Lives (LSL) collaborative.

Procedures We conducted a longitudinal, mixed methods intervention study of 10 hospitals over a 2-year period; data included surveys of 223 individuals (response rates 83%–94% depending on wave) and 393 in-depth interviews with clinical and management staff most engaged with the LSL intervention in the 10 hospitals. We measured change in culture and RSMR, and key aspects of working related to team membership, turnover, level of participation and approaches to conflict management.

Main findings The six hospitals that experienced substantial culture change and greater reductions in RSMR demonstrated distinctions in: (1) effective inclusion of staff from different disciplines and levels in the organisational hierarchy in the team guiding improvement efforts (referred to as the ‘guiding coalition’ in each hospital); (2) authentic participation in the work of the guiding coalition; and (3) distinct patterns of managing conflict. Guiding coalition size and turnover were not associated with success (p values>0.05). In the six hospitals that experienced substantial positive culture change, staff indicated that the LSL learnings were already being applied to other improvement efforts.

Principal conclusions Hospitals that were most successful in a national quality collaborative to shift hospital culture and reduce RSMR showed distinct patterns in membership diversity, authentic participation and capacity for conflict management.

  • Quality improvement
  • Teams
  • Teamwork

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors LAC, EL and EHB conceptualised, designed and obtained funding for the study. LAC is the principal investigator. EHB, AB, EL and LAC drafted the manuscript. All authors critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content and approved the final version.

  • Funding Funding was provided through a research grant from The Medicines Company, Parsippany, New Jersey, USA.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval Yale Human Research Protection Program; Human Investigation Committee.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles