BACKGROUND: Quality and safety improvement programmes advance the standard of care delivered by health organisations but have been shown to be less effective than anticipated. Implementing improvement programmes require a greater understanding of the impact of the social context and strategies that engage staff. OBJECTIVE: To investigate factors that shaped the development of interprofessional improvement initiatives in a health organisation. METHODS: Data are drawn from a large-scale longitudinal action research study examining interprofessional learning and practice. The setting is an autonomous bounded health jurisdiction in Australia. Within the study, health professionals have conceptualised more than 111 interprofessional improvement projects, of which 76 have evolved into ongoing activities. Textual data were analysed using emergent coding and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Initiatives were shaped by six determinants: site receptivity; team issues; leadership; impact on healthcare relations; impact on quality and safety issues; and extent to which the projects became institutionally embedded. Initiatives that engaged participants and progressed were characterised by and displayed flexible leadership, and ongoing refinement and maturity over time. The local organisational context and initiatives coevolved. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement initiatives are necessary for improved quality of care and patient safety but are difficult to implement and sustain. The factors identified to develop them are constantly under challenge in health services. Improving healthcare quality will, in part, depend upon the ability to provide more flexible and supportive social contexts.
BACKGROUND: Quality and safety improvement programmes advance the standard of care delivered by health organisations but have been shown to be less effective than anticipated. Implementing improvement programmes require a greater understanding of the impact of the social context and strategies that engage staff. OBJECTIVE: To investigate factors that shaped the development of interprofessional improvement initiatives in a health organisation. METHODS: Data are drawn from a large-scale longitudinal action research study examining interprofessional learning and practice. The setting is an autonomous bounded health jurisdiction in Australia. Within the study, health professionals have conceptualised more than 111 interprofessional improvement projects, of which 76 have evolved into ongoing activities. Textual data were analysed using emergent coding and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Initiatives were shaped by six determinants: site receptivity; team issues; leadership; impact on healthcare relations; impact on quality and safety issues; and extent to which the projects became institutionally embedded. Initiatives that engaged participants and progressed were characterised by and displayed flexible leadership, and ongoing refinement and maturity over time. The local organisational context and initiatives coevolved. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement initiatives are necessary for improved quality of care and patient safety but are difficult to implement and sustain. The factors identified to develop them are constantly under challenge in health services. Improving healthcare quality will, in part, depend upon the ability to provide more flexible and supportive social contexts.
Authors: Rebecca L Phillips; Alison Short; Annie Kenning; Paul Dugdale; Peter Nugus; Russell McGowan; David Greenfield Journal: Health Expect Date: 2014-07-07 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Annie B Fox; Alison B Hamilton; Susan M Frayne; Shannon Wiltsey-Stirman; Bevanne Bean-Mayberry; Diane Carney; Brooke A L Di Leone; Jennifer M Gierisch; Karen M Goldstein; Yasmin Romodan; Anne G Sadler; Elizabeth M Yano; Ellen F Yee; Dawne Vogt Journal: J Contin Educ Health Prof Date: 2016 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Jeffrey Braithwaite; Mary Westbrook; Peter Nugus; David Greenfield; Joanne Travaglia; William Runciman; A Ruth Foxwell; Rosalie A Boyce; Timothy Devinney; Johanna Westbrook Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-04-20 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: David Greenfield; Reece Hinchcliff; Max Moldovan; Virginia Mumford; Marjorie Pawsey; Johanna Irene Westbrook; Jeffrey Braithwaite Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2012-10-10 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Angus I G Ramsay; Simon Turner; Gillian Cavell; C Alice Oborne; Rebecca E Thomas; Graham Cookson; Naomi J Fulop Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2013-09-12 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Leahora Rotteau; Fiona Webster; Erin Salkeld; Chelsea Hellings; Astrid Guttmann; Marian J Vermeulen; Robert S Bell; Merrick Zwarenstein; Brian H Rowe; Amit Nigam; Michael J Schull Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2015-05-20 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Siri Wiig; Karina Aase; Christian von Plessen; Susan Burnett; Francisco Nunes; Anne Marie Weggelaar; Boel Anderson-Gare; Johan Calltorp; Naomi Fulop Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-10-11 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Marije Bosch; Emma J Tavender; Sue E Brennan; Jonathan Knott; Russell L Gruen; Sally E Green Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 3.240