Literature DB >> 20738468

The disparity of frontline clinical staff and managers' perceptions of a quality and patient safety initiative.

Anam Parand1, Susan Burnett, Jonathan Benn, Anna Pinto, Sandra Iskander, Charles Vincent.   

Abstract

RATIONALE, AIMS AND
OBJECTIVES: Arguably, a shared perspective between managers and their clinical staff on an improvement initiative would allow for most effective implementation and increase programme success. However, it has been reported that research has failed to differentiate between managers and line employees on quality management implementation and examine their differences in perceptions of quality and safety initiatives. The aim of this study was to compare clinical frontline staff and senior managers' perceptions on the importance of an organization-wide quality and safety collaborative: the Safer Patients Initiative (SPI).
METHOD: A quantitative study obtained 635 surveys at 20 trusts participating in SPI. Participants included the teams and frontline staff involved within the programme at each organization. Independent T-tests were carried out between frontline staff and senior managers' perceptions of SPI programme elements, success factors and impact & sustainability.
RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found between the perceptions of frontline staff and senior managers on a wide number of issues, including the frontline perceiving a significantly larger improvement on the timeliness of care delivery (t = 2.943, P = 0.004), while managers perceived larger improvement on the culture within the organization for safe, effective and reliable care (t = -2.454, P = 0.014).
CONCLUSION: This study has identified statistically significant disparities in perceptions of an organization-wide improvement initiative between frontline staff and senior managers. This holds valuable implications for the importance of getting both frontline and management perspectives when designing such interventions, in monitoring their performance, and in evaluating their impact.
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20738468     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01506.x

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


  7 in total

Review 1.  The "Waze" of Inequity Reduction Frameworks for Organizations: a Scoping Review.

Authors:  Sivan Spitzer-Shohat; Marshall H Chin
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2019-02-07       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  The role of chief executive officers in a quality improvement : a qualitative study.

Authors:  Anam Parand; Sue Dopson; Charles Vincent
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-01-03       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Facilitators for using data from a quality registry in local quality improvement work: a cross-sectional survey of the Danish Cardiac Rehabilitation Database.

Authors:  Cecilie Lindström Egholm; Charlotte Helmark; Jan Christensen; Ann Catrine Eldh; Ulrika Winblad; Gitte Bunkenborg; Ann-Dorthe Zwisler; Per Nilsen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-06-12       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Initiating Aha moments when implementing person-centered care in nursing homes: a multi-arm, pre-post intervention.

Authors:  Laci J Cornelison; Linda Hermer; Maggie L Syme; Gayle Doll
Journal:  BMC Geriatr       Date:  2019-04-23       Impact factor: 3.921

5.  Perceptions of managerial staff on the patient safety culture at a tertiary hospital in South Africa.

Authors:  Veena Abraham; Johanna C Meyer; Brian Godman; Elvera Helberg
Journal:  Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being       Date:  2022-12

6.  Patient safety culture assessment in oman.

Authors:  Ahmed Al-Mandhari; Ibrahim Al-Zakwani; Moosa Al-Kindi; Jihane Tawilah; Atsu S S Dorvlo; Samir Al-Adawi
Journal:  Oman Med J       Date:  2014-07

7.  Beyond clinical engagement: a pragmatic model for quality improvement interventions, aligning clinical and managerial priorities.

Authors:  Samuel Pannick; Nick Sevdalis; Thanos Athanasiou
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2015-12-08       Impact factor: 7.035

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.