Quality Improvement and Workplace Wellbeing Capacity and Capability in Aotearoa New Zealand Emergency Departments. A Nationwide Mixed Methods Survey.

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers in emergency departments (EDs) need to function optimally to deliver high-quality healthcare. High levels of burnout negatively impact these workers' delivery of quality care to their patients. Quality improvement and workplace wellbeing programmes may simultaneously improve quality of care and burnout. Global recommendations for strengthening quality improvement and workplace wellbeing are increasingly available for healthcare services. Understanding organisational capacity and capability for improvement and wellbeing is an important first step in co-designing change. This study sought to assess the capacity and capability for quality improvement and workplace wellbeing initiatives in New Zealand EDs.

METHODS

In a convergent mixed methods study, a cross-sectional online survey was conducted in August-October 2022. Quality and/or workplace wellbeing leaders were invited to participate from each of the 35 EDs across New Zealand. Questions were based on a range of published tools described below. Participants were invited to contribute further details in free-response items. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and qualitative data were analysed thematically, then data were integrated.

RESULTS

Sixty leaders (30 medical, 29 nursing, 1 other) representing 29/35 (83%) of EDs responded. Overall quantitative results demonstrated considerable gaps between reported and best-possible capacity and capability for quality improvement and workplace wellbeing. Institute for Healthcare Improvement Self-Assessment Tool mean score was 2.4 (maximum 5; SD 0.8); Improvement Readiness scale mean score was 3.1 (maximum 5; SD 0.9); a positive improvement climate was identified in 13/60 (22%) EDs; Australasian College for Emergency Medicine Quality Standards Implementation Toolkit measures, means were 51 (maximum 100; SD 21) for quality improvement and 46 (SD 20) for wellbeing; Shanafelt's Era of workplace wellbeing mean score was 3.1 (maximum 5; SD 0.6); for 11/59 (19%) respondents, none of the measures of the Joy in Medicine Health System Recognition Program applied to their ED. Three qualitative themes were identified: 'work-related frustration and distress'; 'desire, motives, actions, effort to make things better'; and the 'interdependence of high-quality care and workplace wellbeing'. Data integration strengthens understanding of quantitative and qualitative results and analyses, which were congruent throughout the study.

CONCLUSION

Capacity and capability for quality improvement and workplace wellbeing across all survey items were generally perceived to be low. Participants expressed perceptions of healthcare worker distress and wasted efforts. Addressing and building capacity and capability in both quality improvement and workplace wellbeing initiatives is a potential first step in improving quality of patient care and healthcare worker wellbeing.