Purpose Systems thinking is the ability to recognize and synthesize patterns, interactions, and interdependencies in a set of activities and is a key component in quality and safety. A measure of systems thinking is needed to advance our understanding of the mechanisms that contribute to improvement efforts. The purpose of this study was to develop and conduct psychometric testing of a systems thinking scale (STS). Methods The development of the STS included obtaining national quality and safety experts’ conceptual domains of systems thinking and the generation of a provisional set of items. Further psychometric analyses were conducted with interprofessional healthcare faculty (N = 342) and students (N = 224) engaged in quality improvement initiatives and education. Results Of the 26 items identified in the development phase, factor analyses indicated three factors: (1) system thinking (20 items), (2) personal effort (2 items), and (3) reliance on authority (4 items). The six items from factors 2 and 3 were omitted due to low factor loadings. Test-retest reliability of the 20-item STS was performed on 36 healthcare professionals and a correlation of 0.74 was found. Internal consistency testing on a sample of 342 healthcare professionals using Cronbach’s alpha showed a coefficient of 0.89. Discriminant validity was confirmed with three groups of healthcare professions students (N = 102) who received high, low, or no dose levels of systems thinking education in the context of process improvement. Conclusions The 20-item STS is a valid and reliable instrument that is easy to administer and takes less than 10 min to complete. Further research using the STS has the potential to advance the science and education of quality improvement in two main ways: (1) increase understanding of a critical mechanism by which quality improvement processes achieve results, and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of our education to improve systems thinking.

Over a decade has passed since the Institute of Medicine’s reports on the need to improve the American healthcare system, and yet only slight improvement in quality and safety has been reported. The Quality and Safety Education for Nurses (QSEN) initiative was developed to integrate quality and safety competencies into nursing education. The current challenge is for nurses to move beyond the application of QSEN competencies to individual patients and families and incorporate systems thinking in quality and safety education and healthcare delivery. This article provides a history of QSEN and proposes a framework in which systems thinking is a critical aspect in the application of the QSEN competencies. We provide examples of how using this framework expands nursing focus from individual care to care of the system and propose ways to teach and measure systems thinking. The conclusion calls for movement from personal effort and individual care to a focus on care of the system that will accelerate improvement of healthcare quality and safety.

The purpose of this secondary analysis was to determine whether age affects women's and men's exercise adherence after a cardiac event. In a convenience sample of 248 adults ages 38 to 86 who had a cardiac event, exercise adherence (three exercise sessions per week) was compared between men and women in three age groups (younger than 60, 61 to 70, and older than 70). Exercise patterns were recorded by heart rate monitors worn during exercise. No differences were found in adherence between the age groups for women; older men were nonadherent sooner than younger men when controlling for fitness level, pain, comorbidity, self-efficacy, depressed mood, and social support. Exercise adherence after a cardiac event was higher for younger men compared with older men. For all age groups, less than 37% of the total sample adhered to a three-times-per-week exercise regimen after 1 year, suggesting that interventions to maintain exercise adherence are needed.

Background: Post-acute care (PAC) is available for older adults who need additional services after hospitalization for acute cardiac events. With the aging population and an increase in the prevalence of cardiac disease, it is important to determine current PAC use for cardiac patients to assist health care workers to meet the needs of older cardiac patients. The purpose of this study was to determine the current PAC use and factors associated with PAC use for older adults following hospitalization for a cardiac event that includes coronary artery bypass graft and valve surgeries, myocardial infarction (MI), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and heart failure (HF). Methods and Results: A cross-sectional design and the 2003 Medicare part A database were used for this study. The sample (n = 1493521) consisted of patients 65 years and older discharged after their first cardiac event. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with PAC use. Overall, PAC use was 55% for cardiac valve surgery, 50% for MI, 45% for HF, 44% for coronary artery bypass graft, and 5% for PCI. Medical patients use more skilled nursing facility care, and surgical patients use more home health care. Only 0.1% to 3.4% of the cardiac patients use intermediate rehabilitation facilities. Compared with those who do not use PAC, those who use home health care and skilled nursing facility care are older and female, have a longer hospital length of stay, and have more comorbidity. Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans were less likely to use PAC after hospitalization for an MI or HF. Conclusions: The current rate of PAC use indicates that almost half of nondisabled Medicare patients discharged from the hospital following a cardiac event use one of these services. Health care professionals can increase PAC use for Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans by including culturally targeted communication. Optimizing recovery for cardiac patients who use PAC may require focused cardiac rehabilitation strategies.