BACKGROUND: Although interdisciplinary hospital quality improvement (QI) teams are both prevalent and associated with success of (QI) efforts, little is known about the behaviors of successful interdisciplinary QI teams. OBJECTIVE: We examined the specific behaviors of interdisciplinary QI teams in hospitals that successfully redesigned care for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and reduced door-to-balloon times. DESIGN: Qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: Researchers interviewed 122 administrators, providers, and staff in 11 hospitals with substantial improvements in door-to-balloon times. MEASUREMENTS: Using data from the in-depth qualitative interviews, the authors identified themes that described the behaviors of interdisciplinary QI teams in successful hospitals. RESULTS: Teams focused on 5 behaviors: (1) motivating involved hospital staff toward a shared goal, (2) creating opportunities for learning and problem-solving, (3) addressing the impact of changes to care processes on staff, (4) protecting the integrity of the new care processes, and (5) representing each involved clinical discipline effectively. CONCLUSIONS: The behaviors observed may enhance a QI team's ability to motivate the various disciplines involved, understand the care process they must change, be responsive to front-line concerns while maintaining control over the improvement process, and share information across all levels of the hospital hierarchy. Teams in successful hospitals did not avoid interdisciplinary conflict, but rather allowed each discipline to contribute to the team from its own perspective. Successful QI teams addressed the concerns of each involved discipline, modified protocols guided by clinical outcomes, and became conduits of information on changes to care processes to both executive managers and front-line staff.
BACKGROUND: Although interdisciplinary hospital quality improvement (QI) teams are both prevalent and associated with success of (QI) efforts, little is known about the behaviors of successful interdisciplinary QI teams. OBJECTIVE: We examined the specific behaviors of interdisciplinary QI teams in hospitals that successfully redesigned care for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and reduced door-to-balloon times. DESIGN: Qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: Researchers interviewed 122 administrators, providers, and staff in 11 hospitals with substantial improvements in door-to-balloon times. MEASUREMENTS: Using data from the in-depth qualitative interviews, the authors identified themes that described the behaviors of interdisciplinary QI teams in successful hospitals. RESULTS: Teams focused on 5 behaviors: (1) motivating involved hospital staff toward a shared goal, (2) creating opportunities for learning and problem-solving, (3) addressing the impact of changes to care processes on staff, (4) protecting the integrity of the new care processes, and (5) representing each involved clinical discipline effectively. CONCLUSIONS: The behaviors observed may enhance a QI team's ability to motivate the various disciplines involved, understand the care process they must change, be responsive to front-line concerns while maintaining control over the improvement process, and share information across all levels of the hospital hierarchy. Teams in successful hospitals did not avoid interdisciplinary conflict, but rather allowed each discipline to contribute to the team from its own perspective. Successful QI teams addressed the concerns of each involved discipline, modified protocols guided by clinical outcomes, and became conduits of information on changes to care processes to both executive managers and front-line staff.
Authors: Elizabeth H Bradley; Sarah A Roumanis; Martha J Radford; Tashonna R Webster; Robert L McNamara; Jennifer A Mattera; Barbara A Barton; David N Berg; Edward L Portnay; Harry Moscovitz; Janet Parkosewich; Eric S Holmboe; Martha Blaney; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-10-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Stephen M Shortell; Jill A Marsteller; Michael Lin; Marjorie L Pearson; Shin-Yi Wu; Peter Mendel; Shan Cretin; Mayde Rosen Journal: Med Care Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Lisa V Rubenstein; Louise E Parker; Lisa S Meredith; Andrea Altschuler; Emmeline dePillis; John Hernandez; Nancy P Gordon Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Elliott M Antman; Daniel T Anbe; Paul Wayne Armstrong; Eric R Bates; Lee A Green; Mary Hand; Judith S Hochman; Harlan M Krumholz; Frederick G Kushner; Gervasio A Lamas; Charles J Mullany; Joseph P Ornato; David L Pearle; Michael A Sloan; Sidney C Smith; Joseph S Alpert; Jeffrey L Anderson; David P Faxon; Valentin Fuster; Raymond J Gibbons; Gabriel Gregoratos; Jonathan L Halperin; Loren F Hiratzka; Sharon Ann Hunt; Alice K Jacobs Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-08-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Eugene C Nelson; Paul B Batalden; Thomas P Huber; Julie J Mohr; Marjorie M Godfrey; Linda A Headrick; John H Wasson Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Improv Date: 2002-09
Authors: Adam B Landman; Erica S Spatz; Emily J Cherlin; Harlan M Krumholz; Elizabeth H Bradley; Leslie A Curry Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2012-11-10 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Makayla Cordoza; Kristen Rachinski; Kristin Nathan; Elisa B Crain; Diane Braxmeyer; Sarah Gore; Stephanie D Dubuc; Joel Wright Journal: J Nurs Care Qual Date: 2021 Oct-Dec 01 Impact factor: 1.597
Authors: E Charani; E Castro-Sanchez; N Sevdalis; Y Kyratsis; L Drumright; N Shah; A Holmes Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2013-04-09 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Selina K Wallis; Kate Jehan; Mark Woodhead; Paul Cleary; Katie Dee; Stacey Farrow; Paddy McMaster; Carolyn Wake; Jenny Walker; D J Sloan; S B Squire Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 2.692