Fiona Muttalib1, Ellis Ballard2, Josephine Langton3, Sara Malone4, Yudy Fonseca5, Andreas Hansmann6, Kenneth Remy7, Peter Hovmand2, Allan Doctor8. 1. Centre for Global Child Health, Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X8, Canada. Fiona.muttalib@mail.utoronto.ca. 2. Social System Design Lab, Brown School of Social Work and Public Health, Washington University in St Louis, St-Louis, MO, USA. 3. Department of Paediatrics, College of Medicine, Blantyre, Malawi. 4. Brown School of Social Work and Public Health, Washington University in St Louis, St-Louis, MO, USA. 5. University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. Neonatal and Paediatric ICU, National Pediatric Hospital, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. 7. Departments of Pediatrics and Internal Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 8. Pediatric Critical Care Medicine and Center for Blood Oxygen Transport and Hemostasis, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Group model building (GMB) is a method to facilitate shared understanding of structures and relationships that determine system behaviors. This project aimed to determine the feasibility of GMB in a resource-limited setting and to use GMB to describe key barriers and facilitators to effective acute care delivery at a tertiary care hospital in Malawi. METHODS: Over 1 week, trained facilitators led three GMB sessions with two groups of healthcare providers to facilitate shared understanding of structures and relationships that determine system behaviors. One group aimed to identify factors that impact patient flow in the paediatric special care ward. The other aimed to identify factors impacting delivery of high-quality care in the paediatric accident and emergency room. Synthesized causal maps of factors influencing patient care were generated, revised, and qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS: Causal maps identified patient condition as the central modifier of acute care delivery. Severe illness and high volume of patients were identified as creating system strain in several domains: (1) physical space, (2) resource needs and utilization, (3) staff capabilities and (4) quality improvement. Stress in these domains results in worsening patient condition and perpetuating negative reinforcing feedback loops. Balancing factors inherent to the current system included (1) parental engagement, (2) provider resilience, (3) ease of communication and (4) patient death. Perceived strengths of the GMB process were representation of diverse stakeholder viewpoints and complex system synthesis in a visual causal pathway, the process inclusivity, development of shared understanding, new idea generation and momentum building. Challenges identified included time required for completion and potential for participant selection bias. CONCLUSIONS: GMB facilitated creation of a shared mental model, as a first step in optimizing acute care delivery in a paediatric facility in this resource-limited setting.
BACKGROUND: Group model building (GMB) is a method to facilitate shared understanding of structures and relationships that determine system behaviors. This project aimed to determine the feasibility of GMB in a resource-limited setting and to use GMB to describe key barriers and facilitators to effective acute care delivery at a tertiary care hospital in Malawi. METHODS: Over 1 week, trained facilitators led three GMB sessions with two groups of healthcare providers to facilitate shared understanding of structures and relationships that determine system behaviors. One group aimed to identify factors that impact patient flow in the paediatric special care ward. The other aimed to identify factors impacting delivery of high-quality care in the paediatric accident and emergency room. Synthesized causal maps of factors influencing patient care were generated, revised, and qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS: Causal maps identified patient condition as the central modifier of acute care delivery. Severe illness and high volume of patients were identified as creating system strain in several domains: (1) physical space, (2) resource needs and utilization, (3) staff capabilities and (4) quality improvement. Stress in these domains results in worsening patient condition and perpetuating negative reinforcing feedback loops. Balancing factors inherent to the current system included (1) parental engagement, (2) provider resilience, (3) ease of communication and (4) patientdeath. Perceived strengths of the GMB process were representation of diverse stakeholder viewpoints and complex system synthesis in a visual causal pathway, the process inclusivity, development of shared understanding, new idea generation and momentum building. Challenges identified included time required for completion and potential for participant selection bias. CONCLUSIONS:GMB facilitated creation of a shared mental model, as a first step in optimizing acute care delivery in a paediatric facility in this resource-limited setting.
Entities:
Keywords:
Group model building; Paediatric critical care; Paediatric emergency care; Systems dynamics
Authors: T Nolan; P Angos; A J Cunha; L Muhe; S Qazi; E A Simoes; G Tamburlini; M Weber; N F Pierce Journal: Lancet Date: 2001-01-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Yeeli Mui; Ellis Ballard; Eli Lopatin; Rachel L J Thornton; Keshia M Pollack Porter; Joel Gittelsohn Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: John P Ansah; Amina Mahmood Islam; Victoria Koh; Vanthy Ly; Hero Kol; David B Matchar; Chhun Loun; Mondol Loun Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 2.655