Quality improvement initiatives in a case management service: case study

Abstract

This article explores the importance of quality practices in underpinning the person-centred approach at a Community Options Program (COP) case management service in northern NSW. The NSW community care sector does not have a statutory excellence body to identify, promote and support improved practices and quality and safety across community services, and therefore the COP provider decided to establish a dedicated role to focus on the quality improvement of its service. The subsequent quality improvement initiatives have included mapping the clients' journey through the service, identifying areas to standardise practice, and creating service pathways. The clients' journey was used as the framework to identify where standardised practice was required, and a robust process was implemented to develop over 25 good practice guidelines and tools that addressed the variations in practice and enabled the service pathways to be developed. Prior to trialling the guidelines and tools, staff received education sessions on the anticipated changes to practice, and the practicality and applicability of the guidelines were evaluated at the end of the trials. This information was reviewed and the guidelines were amended accordingly before being rolled out. The guidelines have been in use for over 12 months and have provided the benchmark against which to audit practice, and have resulted in key performance improvements such as an increase in client review rates and a rise in the feedback response rate from clients, with a noticeable shift in the comments about the brokered support worker to acknowledging the role of their case manager. Formalising informal supports for those clients that lived alone also increased, which means these people are less reliant on services and there is a reduced risk of social isolation.

Reporting and conducting patient journey mapping research in healthcare: A scoping review

“…Involvement and engagement with patients, families and healthcare providers beyond the roles of recruited participants was reported in 17 of the included articles (20.99%). The extent to which these members were involved included co‐design and evaluation of studies (Davies, 2015 ; Dollard et al, 2018 ; Fennelly et al, 2020 ; Liu et al, 2018 ; Liu et al, 2021 ; Outlaw et al, 2018 ; Richardson et al, 2007 ; Rushton et al, 2018 ; Sijm‐Eeken et al, 2020 ); co‐producing journey maps (Geerse et al, 2019 ); reviewing and validating study results (Jackson et al, 2012 ); developing, testing or providing suggestions and recommendations for journey mapping tools (Kelly et al, 2016 , 2017 ; Wauben et al, 2015 ) and; facilitating participant recruitment (Oliver et al, 2008 ). These engaged personnel were acknowledged in all of these articles either within the body of the text or in a dedicated acknowledgements paragraph.…”