Literature DB >> 20438607

Room for improvement? Leadership, innovation culture and uptake of quality improvement methods in general practice.

Tanefa A Apekey1, Gerry McSorley, Michelle Tilling, A Niroshan Siriwardena.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Leadership and innovation are currently seen as essential elements for the development and maintenance of high-quality care. Little is known about the relationship between leadership and culture of innovation and the extent to which quality improvement methods are used in general practice. This study aimed to assess the relationship between leadership behaviour, culture of innovation and adoption of quality improvement methods in general practice.
METHOD: Self-administered postal questionnaires were sent to general practitioner quality improvement leads in one county in the UK between June and December 2007. The questionnaire consisted of background information, a 12-item scale to assess leadership behaviour, a seven-dimension self-rating scale for culture of innovation and questions on current use of quality improvement tools and techniques.
RESULTS: Sixty-three completed questionnaires (62%) were returned. Leadership behaviours were not commonly reported. Most practices reported a positive culture of innovation, featuring relationship most strongly, followed by targets and information but rated lower on other dimensions of rewards, risk and resources. There was a significant positive correlation between leadership behaviour and the culture of innovation (r = 0.57; P < 0.001). Apart from clinical audit and significant event analysis, quality improvement methods were not adopted by most participating practices.
CONCLUSIONS: Leadership behaviours were infrequently reported and this was associated with a limited culture of innovation in participating general practices. There was little use of quality improvement methods beyond clinical and significant event audit. Practices need support to enhance leadership skills, encourage innovation and develop quality improvement skills if improvements in health care are to accelerate.
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 20438607     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01447.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract        ISSN: 1356-1294            Impact factor:   2.431


  9 in total

1.  Medical leadership and general practice: seductive or dictatorial?

Authors:  Steve Iliffe; Jill Manthorpe
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 2.  Pay-for-performance in the United Kingdom: impact of the quality and outcomes framework: a systematic review.

Authors:  Stephen J Gillam; A Niroshan Siriwardena; Nicholas Steel
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2012 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.166

3.  Maximising harm reduction in early specialty training for general practice: validation of a safety checklist.

Authors:  Paul Bowie; John McKay; Moya Kelly
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 2.497

4.  Organizational development trajectory of a large academic radiotherapy department set up similarly to a prospective clinical trial: the MAASTRO experience.

Authors:  M Jacobs; L Boersma; A Dekker; E Hermanns; R Houben; M Govers; F van Merode; P Lambin
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-02-13       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Applying the Trigger Review Method after a brief educational intervention: potential for teaching and improving safety in GP specialty training?

Authors:  John McKay; Carl de Wet; Moya Kelly; Paul Bowie
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 2.463

6.  Undertaking general practice quality improvement to improve cancer screening - a thematic analysis of provider experiences.

Authors:  Steven A Trankle; Christine Metusela; Jennifer Reath
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2021-11-17       Impact factor: 2.497

Review 7.  Measuring organizational and individual factors thought to influence the success of quality improvement in primary care: a systematic review of instruments.

Authors:  Sue E Brennan; Marije Bosch; Heather Buchan; Sally E Green
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2012-12-17       Impact factor: 7.327

8.  Good practice statements on safe laboratory testing: A mixed methods study by the LINNEAUS collaboration on patient safety in primary care.

Authors:  Paul Bowie; Eleanor Forrest; Julie Price; Wim Verstappen; David Cunningham; Lyn Halley; Suzanne Grant; Moya Kelly; John Mckay
Journal:  Eur J Gen Pract       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 1.904

9.  Exploration of contextual factors in a successful quality improvement collaborative in English ambulance services: cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Viet-Hai Phung; Nadya Essam; Zahid Asghar; Anne Spaight; Aloysius N Siriwardena
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2015-08-24       Impact factor: 2.431

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.