Labante Outcha Dare

and 2 more

In a high-quality health and social services system, policymakers encourage action at all levels of change to ensure the consistency of quality strategies, especially at the systemic level, in which the other three levels of change are nested and the whole system is structured. This study aims to present an analysis of Quality Improvement Support Agencies (QISAs) as a systemic strategy, which has been successfully implemented in several jurisdictions (countries and states). A comparative study of two critical cases in two different jurisdictions was carried out: Haute autorité de santé (HAS) in France and Institut national d’excellence en santé et services sociaux (INESSS) in Québec, Canada. Several sources of iteratively collected data were coded using a systematized approach. All data were processed and analyzed confidentially using the software QDA Miner 6.0.2. The results showed that HAS has a wider range of activities and INESSS has a narrower range. Their statutes of autonomy differ, with the former QISA more independent of the public power of its jurisdiction and the latter more at the service of public power. Though their products differ, these QISAs each have different effects (proximal, intermediate, and ultimate) on quality improvement in practice settings. Furthermore, it appears that they have each faced dilemmas in achieving systemic quality improvement. This study may inspire other jurisdictions to implement similar systemic quality improvement strategies or strengthen them if they have already been implemented.

Labante Outcha Dare

and 2 more

Quality improvement has become a global priority as more countries become interested in systemic strategies, particularly that of the Quality Improvement Support Agency (QISA). This study sets out to identify and document contextual factors that facilitate or hinder the perceived effects of QISAs. A study of two critical and paradigmatic cases consisting of the QISAs HAS and INESSS was carried out through interviews, a focus group discussion, a non-participatory observation session, and the use of secondary data from in-depth documentary research. All data were recorded and processed using the QDA Miner 6.0.2 software in an inductive approach in two coding cycles and were validated by the participants. The results showed that the contextual factors at the level of the internal environment included: leadership of agency actors; dissemination and support strategy for their productions and support for their implementation; availability and nature of human, informational, and material resources; organizational culture; training of actors; and coordination, coherence, and complementarity of the various activities of an agency. At the level of the external environment, the factors included: crises; institutional collaborations and partnerships at the national and international levels; collaborations and partnerships with system actors; public policy, governance, and leadership; legal provisions; health information system and data accessibility; and funding. These results, the first to be produced on this topic, complement the literature on QISAs and may thus inspire other jurisdictions in developed and developing countries to implement more efficient, sustainable, and self-potentiating quality improvement strategies.