Section I. 1Annex 1b

Methods and means

The first task will be to define a common terminology & framework. This will be done at project level and specifically together with WP 4 and WP6. The terminology must ensure a common understanding of the WP5 concepts and form the basis for the specific WP5 framework.

Based on this terminology, questionnaire will be developed where participating MS will note the PS practices being implemented in their country. This web-based questionnaire will be developed in close cooperation with WP4 and WP6 in order to coordinate similar work plans and synchronize questionnaires. There should be the development of an internet-based database like a wiki-platform driven in order to simplify communication and exchange of work results. Also there will be a literature research on good PS practices conducted and evaluated. PS practices will be classified and rated regarding their availability, distribution and scope of implementation in the Member States.

WP5 tasks will cover:

1. 
   Terminology and framework
   
2. 
   Retrieval of information through specifically developed instruments (see WP4 and 6)
   
3. 
   Selection of GP for implementation
   

• 
  Review possible criteria and select the most appropriate one
  
• 
  Design, agree, pilot and put in a website platform an on-line template to get good practices
  
• 
  Disseminating the information of the existence of the website platform to collect GP
  
• 
  Outline for an Internet platform for dissemination
  

4. 
   Selection of HCOs for implementation. NCPs of MS participating to implementation will propose a list of 3-5 HCOs having accepted to implement one of the selected GP
   
5. 
   Outline for an Internet platform for dissemination
   

Together with WP 4 and 6 there will be the definition of an internet-based database with the possibilities of online research of good PS practises

6. 
   Definition and selection of evaluation criteria
   

Together with WP2 good PS practices will be evaluated and screened regarding possible quality indicators. Those will be assessed and rated regarding their usefulness as evaluation indicators

7. 
   Definition and monitoring of implementation process
   

All the AP will research the implementation processes which have been taken place to implement the different PS GP and will report on them. In the ongoing project they will support the HCO and assist them in the implementation. The following steps will be discussed:

1. 
   Identify healthcare organisations: advertise the project on the basis of good practices identified
   
2. 
   Match good practices and healthcare organisations: build a mechanism to confront the good practices collected and the HCO identified
   
3. 
   Collect and adapt implementation tools
   
1. 
   Training of multiplicators (trainers): where possible and feasible workshops or webinars for national coordinators or HCO professionals will take place in order to support the implementation processes. A web based collaborative learning community will be established in coordination with WP2
   
2. 
   Participation to exchange mechanism: GPs selected for implementation will be proposed for the exchange mechanism. WP5 experts will share their implementation experiences with interested MS
   
3. 
   Sharing GPs through an interactive IT platform. Information on WP5 GPs will be shared through an interactive web tool developed by WP2. This tool will be designed so as to easily help updating information on a regular basis after the end of the project.
   
4. 
   Report describing the PS good practices implementation (selection of good practices, feasibility of implementation, impact measurement). This report will be discussed at EB level and validated by the SC.
   

Table 8: WP5 Timeframe of work

Activity	Start and termination of activity by month
Kick-off meeting	2
Defining a common terminology	1-6
Defining a framework	1-6
Coordination meeting	5
Information retrieval	5-10
Selecting GCP for implementation	15
Selecting participating HCOs	16
Tool box for implementation	18
Starting of implementation	18
Coordination meeting	22
Assessment of implementation	30
Report on implementation of good clinical practice solutions in PS.	34

Internal risks and contingency planning

Internal Risks:

• 
  Change in key personnel among task leaders
  
• 
  Delay in delivering work on time by an AP/task groups
  
• 
  Lack in quality of work delivered by a AP
  

Contingency planning

• 
  These risks will be reduced through continuous monitoring of changes over the three year period in order to ensure the rapid integration of new staff, when needed
  
• 
  Constant communication within WP5 on the progress of the individual APs will keep the WP Leader and all APs updated, and a possible delay in delivering work can be predicted early and accounted for
  
• 
  Most partners have participated in previous EU-funded projects and many may substitute each other where appropriate
  
• 
  Most APs are public bodies that can handle rapid crisis management and can access extra human resources, if needed
  

Work Package 6: Quality healthcare systems collaboration in the EU

Leader: Ministry of Health Social Policy and Equity (MSSSI), Spain

Associated partners

In addition to MSSSI as WP Leader, 22 APs are involved in WP6.

Table 9: WP6 APs

Country	Acronym	Organisation
Austria	PMU	Paracelsus University Salzburg
Denmark	DSPS	Danish Society for Patient Safety
Finland	THL	National Institute for Health and Welfare
France	HAS	Haute Autorité de Santé
Germany	AQuMed	German Agency for Quality in Medicine
Germany	IfPS	Universitätsklinikum Bonn - Insitute for Patient Safety
Greece	NKUA	National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Hungary	GYEMSZI	National Institute for Quality and Organisational Development in Healthcare and Medicines
Ireland	HIQA	Health Information and Quality Authority
Italy	ULSS10	Local Health Authority n° 10, Veneto Region
Italy	ITMoH	Ministry of Health
Latvia	REUH	Riga East University Hospital
Netherlands	NIVEL	Nederlands Instituut voor Onderzoek van de Gezondheidszorg
Poland	NCQA	National Center for Quality Assessment in Healthcare
Romania	NSPHM	National School of Public Health and Health Management
Slovakia	SKMoH	Ministry of Health
Spain	FAD	Avedis Donabedian Foundation
UK	DH	Department of Health
EC	EFN	European Federation of Nurses Associations
EC	EPF	European Patients’ Forum
EC	HOPE	European Hospital and Healthcare Federation
EC	PGEU	Pharmaceutical Group of the EU

Budget

Total WP budget is € 1.200.000

Introduction and objectives

Knowledge about quality management systems (QMS) in healthcare in the EU will contribute to the understanding of those aspects they are built on and assist the discussion of basic principles among MS.

The main objective of WP6 is to strengthen cooperation between EU MS and EU stakeholders on issues related to QMS in healthcare, including PS and patient involvement (PI) by: obtaining insight and mapping of QMS in MS; sharing good organisational practices in QMS; reflecting on principles of good quality management in health care; and building and/or consolidating a network of organisations for sustained collaboration in the field of QMS.

WP6 will be innovating by providing a joint and accessible analysis of QMS in MS and by offering policy makers, healthcare managers and professionals’, patients and consumers’ organisations examples of good organisational practices (GOPs) in quality improvement, PS and PI. The GOPs will be identified through the engagement of a broad network of stakeholders sharing experiences and knowledge.

This voluntary exchange of experiences may establish a discussion on basic principles of the QMS in the EU MS.

The specific objectives of WP6 are:

• 
  To build a system (exchange mechanism) to share good organisational practices (GOP) between MS and stakeholders
  
• 
  To provide a detailed analysis of the QMS in MS
  
• 
  To identify strategies and GOP, focusing on quality improvement including PS and PI.
  

Good organisational practices in QMS (GOP) definition:

Plans, strategies or programs - encompassing structure and process - oriented to improve the quality of healthcare (including PS and PI) at national or regional level.

For example: the organisation and structure developed to implement an effective safe clinical practice at national and/or regional level.

Exchange mechanism definition:

System developed for sharing experiences and knowledge related to GOP at national and regional level which provides the opportunity to learn from others and to implement strategies, programmes and actions oriented to improve QMS, including PS and PI. This exchange mechanism will involve health care professionals and national stakeholders. All identified safe clinical practices and GOPs will be considered for exchange.

Target groups

• 
  Ministries of Health, Regional Health authorities and Health Administrations responsible for policy making and implementation of strategies on quality and PS
  
• 
  Healthcare organisations’ decision makers and quality and risk managers who can implement the GOPs
  
• 
  Professional organisations and scientific societies actively engaged in PS and quality improvement who can promote GOP dissemination
  
• 
  Patients’ and consumers’ organizations