In this section you will find methods and tools you can use for development, implementation and evaluation of care pathways. Although there are many quality improvement tools (e.g. flowcharts, Ishikawa diagram, 5 times why) already published, we present a number of tools and methods developed specifically for care pathway projects. Each tool or method will be presented, and a reference to a paper with background information will be provided.
This section starts with the 7-phase method for development, implementation and evaluation of care pathways, as this provides the framework for the other tools.
7-phase method for development, implementation and evaluation of care pathways
The 7-phase method was developed by an international team of researchers, clinicians and managers, to support multidisciplinary teams in the development, implementation, evaluation and continuous monitoring of care pathways. It can be used in different health care settings, within and across organizations.
The method consists of seven consecutive phases, although it is always possible to return to a previous phase. It should serve as a guideline to support teams when developing and implementing care pathways.
Each of the seven phases has a specific contribution to the development, implementation and monitoring of a well-organized care process, but it is the combined action between the phases which forms a whole, greater than the sum of its parts.
1) Screening phase – is a care pathway the right tool for the problem we need to solve; who will be the owner of the project / care pathway?
2) Project management phase – do we have the right people, time, budget to start a project; what are our goals?
3) Diagnostic and objectification phase – what is our current practice? Based on four perspectives: own organization & team, vision of patient & family, available evidence & legislation, and external partners
4) Development phase – design and development of the care pathway, based on input from previous phases.
5) Implementation phase – piloting and adjusting the care pathway, followed by implementation for daily use
6) Evaluation phase – evaluation of the care pathway: effect, usability and compliance to the care pathway
7) Continuous follow-up phase – keeping the pathway alive by monitoring, adjusting the pathway
Vanhaecht, K., Van Gerven, E., Deneckere, S., Lodewijckx, C., Janssen, I., Van Zelm, R., … & Sermeus, W. (2012). The 7-phase method to design, implement and evaluate care pathways. International Journal of Person Centered Medicine, 2(3), 341-351.
The table below gives an overview of which tools are typically used in which phase.
|1. Screening||3-blackboard method; CPSET*|
|2. Project management||Gantt chart|
|3. Diagnosis||CP Compass; CPSET; Importance Performance Analysis|
|4. Development||Gantt chart|
|5. Implementation||Implementation model|
|6. Evaluation||Importance Performance Analysis|
|7. Follow-up||CP Compass|
The Leuven Clinical Pathway Compass
Although developed almost 20 years ago, the Leuven Clinical Pathway Compass is still a valuable conceptual framework to help in measuring the impact of care pathways. The Compass is based on existing measurement tools, including the well-known Balanced Score Card, the Value Compass, and the DataMap. The Leuven Clinical Pathway Compass consists of five domains of indicators.
These domains can be used at patient group level to evaluate the impact of a care pathway. The domains are:
- Clinical, containing clinical and functional indicators, both pathway specific (e.g. time to bowel function is a colorectal surgery pathway) as well as generic (e.g. pain scores)
- Service, containing indicators which can be used to evaluate the service of the care pathway team (e.g. patient satisfaction and/or experience of the cere process)
- Team, describing indicators that can be used to assess the impact on teamwork (e.g. job satisfaction, relational coordination) – it can be a difficult domain to evaluate because care pathway teams are not necessarily delivered by well-defined teams
- Process, containing the indicators to evaluate the process of care delivery (e.g. process lead times, waiting times, sequencing of activities, compliance)
- Financial, including the indicators which can be used to assess the financial impact of a care pathway (e.g. number of tests, time spent, length of stay).
The figure above shows the Compass with some examples of indicators per domain. Not all domains are relevant for every care pathway project. It is up to the team to decide which indicators to measure and follow-up, based on the goals of the project. The Compass can also serve as a framework to discuss and formulate the goals of a care pathway project, by systematically looking at all five domains. For some indicators, the domain is debatable. For example length of stay can be explained as a proxy for cost, while at the same time it provides information on process and service. The added value of the Compass is to evaluate the care process from different perspectives.
Vanhaecht, K., & Sermeus, W. (2003). The Leuven clinical pathway compass. Journal of Integrated Care Pathways, 7(1), 2-7.
Conceiving the ‘ideal’ care pathway – the 3-blackboard method
The 3-blackboard method is a consensus building technique for explicating the clinical content of a care pathway. The method was first developed at the Center for Case Management (CCM) in Boston (www.cfcm.com). The method was further elaborated within the Belgian Dutch Clinical Pathway Network and E-P-A master classes, and is used in the ‘screening phase’ of the 7-phase model. The method is based on the slogan: “you first have to identify your goals, and then plan the activities to achieve those goals!”
The 3-blackboard method used out by the CP development team during a project meeting. Participants should have real-life experience with the care process. Based on our
experience, we suggest a group of 7–12 participants for this session. Make sure there are actually three blackboards (or white boards, or flip charts, …) available.
Right hand board: goals
The first step is to discuss and define the specific goals. These are documented on the right hand board, signaling that this is what the team works towards. Goals are defined on two levels:
(1) The care process: goals at the level of the patient group. Usually these goals comprise the discharge or transfer criteria for the patient
(2) The project: these are targets the team (or the organization) tries to achieve with the development and implementation of the CP. For this level, the domains from the Leuven Clinical Pathway Compass can be used.
Middle board: time-task matrix
The middle board contains the activities that should be included in the CP in a later stage. It is a common pitfall to try to reach too much detail in the activities at this stage. During the 3 blackboard session, the activities should be restricted to the so called key interventions. Usually the middle board is formatted as a time-task matrix, where each row represents a category of specific actions, and each column a moment in time. Sometimes different formats are useful, such a goal-task matrix, time-discipline matrix, or a flow chart.
Left hand board: bottlenecks and question marks
The final board is used to write down any points of discussion, bottlenecks, questions et cetera that arise during the session. This way, the discussion on the clinical content can continue, while making sure important questions, discussion points and other items are documented. These items have to be cleared up or objectified in a later stage during the project.
After the 3-blackboard session, there remain several important steps in the development of the CP. Obviously, the middle board has to be filled in with details. Next, based on the 3-blackboard method, the Diagnosis-phase of the seven-phase model can be prepared and executed in order to objectify the content from the three boards.
Vanhaecht, K., Van Zelm, R., Van Gerven, E., Sermeus, W., Bower, K., Panella, M., & Deneckere, S. (2011). The 3-blackboard method as consensus-development exercise for building care pathways. International Journal of Care Pathways, 15(2), 49-52